Switch "identity politics" with "gender/racial identity politics" and their statement becomes (almost) accurate. The whole internet SJW brigade seemed to get its footing in 2008, which would make it about 7 years ago. Before that it existed in niche groups nobody ever heard of or dealt with and was far from being mainstream.
It wasn't until 2010 that it seemed to really take off in the media so I'll personally excuse the "5 years". If you try to find feminist articles or gender politics articles circa 2004-2006 it can be pretty difficult, but if you try to find them from 2008-2010 they become plentiful and easy to find.
I find it intellectually dishonest to stretch "identity politics" to be about "Free vs Proprietary" in the context it was used in, because context will always matter more than a strict dictionary definition.
The nitpicking over terminology (and analogies) is an extremely annoying tactic. So I'll cite Layne's Law [0]. While in the actual "dictionary definition" of identity politics, he is factually wrong. You do indeed have to have a very narrow scope of identity politics (gender, most specifically) to become accurate. In modern usage, in regards to SJW/feminism, "identity politics" is almost exclusively about "gender politics".
The nitpicking over terminology (and analogies) is an extremely annoying tactic. So I'll cite Layne's Law [0]. While in the actual "dictionary definition" of identity politics, he is factually wrong.
No, you cannot narrow a definition to be about your pet cause and then declare anyone discussing the (fairly transparent) larger context to be nitpicking. The "modern usage" you're talking about is limited by self selection and is not, in fact, modern usage so much as jargon with a specific meaning to a particular subculture (or subcultures). Meanwhile the term continues to have a well defined meaning with an extensive and well documented history.
The whole internet SJW brigade seemed to get its footing in 2008, which would make it about 7 years ago. Before that it existed in niche groups nobody ever heard of or dealt with and was far from being mainstream.
It wasn't until 2010 that it seemed to really take off in the media so I'll personally excuse the "5 years". If you try to find feminist articles or gender politics articles circa 2004-2006 it can be pretty difficult, but if you try to find them from 2008-2010 they become plentiful and easy to find.
I have no idea how to respond to this except to suggest you may just not be very good at finding sources before 2008?
Define "pet cause", I'm a random passerby. I happen to understand their argument as they intend it - rather than purposefully misrepresent it so that they are wrong.
:::Edit (also TL;DR)
This example doesn't match up because "Dogs are prone to heart conditions" would be the original argument, but I would need more context that was talking about Rottweilers and Dobermans to allow the meaning to be obvious, but the terminology used to be poor. My point here is to not get stuck on the words used - but the meaning intended behind them.
:::End Edit
Discussing the larger context when you've already delved into a specific context isn't merely nitpicking, it's intellectually dishonest. I'll give you a contrived example, albeit not an exact comparison of the current issue, to illustrate my point:
Argument: "Rottweilers and Dobermans are prone to heart conditions."
Counterargument: "Dogs are not prone to heart conditions!"
Well, the context has already been specified to a niche. Both statements are true but are now arguing what are fundamentally different things. One is talking about specific breeds (subsections) of the species (idea) "dog" while the other is talking about the species "dog".
It would be intellectually dishonest to argue about "dogs" when the person was arguing for "Rottweilers and Dobermans". Even if both belong to "dogs".
Gender/racial identity politics are both subsections of "identity politics". They had already delved into an argument/subsection regarding gender/racial identity politics, and then you went and argue about the broader concept of "identity politics". The issue is you do not want to actually argue against his points. You wanted to argue about his usage of "identity politics". That's intellectually dishonest.
Here's a better way to approach someone either misusing a term or using a broad term where a more specific term would suit their argument better:
"Identity politics is a broad term and could include 'free vs proprietary' ideals, which is the foundation of Open Source / FOSS. It sounds like you're arguing about 'gender politics'. I want to make sure we're on the same page."
They can then clarify that yes, they meant "gender politics" and they might even apologize for using a term that was too broad in meaning.
The point of a debate is to counter someone's arguments, which means you have to make some effort to see their arguments as how they were intended rather than how they were stated.
That means do not nitpick over trivialities and definitions. If you're unclear on a definition of a word they are using, have them clarify it. But to purposefully misunderstand and argue an entirely different concept is unfair to the other person. Especially if they don't recognize what you are doing. (So I'll repeat ad nauseam: intellectually dishonest behavior)
>I have no idea how to respond to this except to suggest you may just not be very good at finding sources before 2008?
"Sources" and "so many sources I could establish a well-stocked multi-floor library" are two different things. I'm not saying sources don't exist at all.
Comments
Switch "identity politics" with "gender/racial identity politics" and their statement becomes (almost) accurate. The whole internet SJW brigade seemed to get its footing in 2008, which would make it about 7 years ago. Before that it existed in niche groups nobody ever heard of or dealt with and was far from being mainstream.
It wasn't until 2010 that it seemed to really take off in the media so I'll personally excuse the "5 years". If you try to find feminist articles or gender politics articles circa 2004-2006 it can be pretty difficult, but if you try to find them from 2008-2010 they become plentiful and easy to find.
I find it intellectually dishonest to stretch "identity politics" to be about "Free vs Proprietary" in the context it was used in, because context will always matter more than a strict dictionary definition.
The nitpicking over terminology (and analogies) is an extremely annoying tactic. So I'll cite Layne's Law [0]. While in the actual "dictionary definition" of identity politics, he is factually wrong. You do indeed have to have a very narrow scope of identity politics (gender, most specifically) to become accurate. In modern usage, in regards to SJW/feminism, "identity politics" is almost exclusively about "gender politics".
[0] http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?LaynesLaw
No, you cannot narrow a definition to be about your pet cause and then declare anyone discussing the (fairly transparent) larger context to be nitpicking. The "modern usage" you're talking about is limited by self selection and is not, in fact, modern usage so much as jargon with a specific meaning to a particular subculture (or subcultures). Meanwhile the term continues to have a well defined meaning with an extensive and well documented history.
I have no idea how to respond to this except to suggest you may just not be very good at finding sources before 2008?
Define "pet cause", I'm a random passerby. I happen to understand their argument as they intend it - rather than purposefully misrepresent it so that they are wrong.
:::Edit (also TL;DR)
This example doesn't match up because "Dogs are prone to heart conditions" would be the original argument, but I would need more context that was talking about Rottweilers and Dobermans to allow the meaning to be obvious, but the terminology used to be poor. My point here is to not get stuck on the words used - but the meaning intended behind them.
:::End Edit
Discussing the larger context when you've already delved into a specific context isn't merely nitpicking, it's intellectually dishonest. I'll give you a contrived example, albeit not an exact comparison of the current issue, to illustrate my point:
Argument: "Rottweilers and Dobermans are prone to heart conditions."
Counterargument: "Dogs are not prone to heart conditions!"
Well, the context has already been specified to a niche. Both statements are true but are now arguing what are fundamentally different things. One is talking about specific breeds (subsections) of the species (idea) "dog" while the other is talking about the species "dog".
It would be intellectually dishonest to argue about "dogs" when the person was arguing for "Rottweilers and Dobermans". Even if both belong to "dogs".
Gender/racial identity politics are both subsections of "identity politics". They had already delved into an argument/subsection regarding gender/racial identity politics, and then you went and argue about the broader concept of "identity politics". The issue is you do not want to actually argue against his points. You wanted to argue about his usage of "identity politics". That's intellectually dishonest.
Here's a better way to approach someone either misusing a term or using a broad term where a more specific term would suit their argument better:
"Identity politics is a broad term and could include 'free vs proprietary' ideals, which is the foundation of Open Source / FOSS. It sounds like you're arguing about 'gender politics'. I want to make sure we're on the same page."
They can then clarify that yes, they meant "gender politics" and they might even apologize for using a term that was too broad in meaning.
The point of a debate is to counter someone's arguments, which means you have to make some effort to see their arguments as how they were intended rather than how they were stated.
That means do not nitpick over trivialities and definitions. If you're unclear on a definition of a word they are using, have them clarify it. But to purposefully misunderstand and argue an entirely different concept is unfair to the other person. Especially if they don't recognize what you are doing. (So I'll repeat ad nauseam: intellectually dishonest behavior)
>I have no idea how to respond to this except to suggest you may just not be very good at finding sources before 2008?
"Sources" and "so many sources I could establish a well-stocked multi-floor library" are two different things. I'm not saying sources don't exist at all.