> some people will wear the labels of "Nazi", "racist" or "alt-right" with pride But that isn't relevant to all situations. If you call someone a label they do

> some people will wear the labels of "Nazi", "racist" or "alt-right" with pride But that isn't relevant to all situations. If you call someone a label they do not attach to themselves, the fact that other people willingly accept that label isn't relevant. In fact, it would be a case of trying to associate a person with a group they do not belong to (or do not self-identify with). > they're to do with objective damage to the over-all society in which they live In which who live? Actual, self-confessed "Nazis", or people labelled as such by their enemies? > I'm avoiding "mansplain" and "TERF" as I'm a male and can't really add anything of authoritative substance to those debates, but can only listen and learn Who does have "authoritative substance"? If you don't consider yourself qualified (or permitted) to comment because you are male, there's your "identity-politics". This is especially pertinent in the case of "mansplain", since it is a label usually used to attack men. > Ad-homs are a zero signal .. If you're of the belief that you win the argument because you had the last say I'm not sure what you believe an "ad-hom" to be, but I take the definition "attacking a person versus their arguments" - which is relevant in case of argument from authority when a person lacks the authority they are invoking (which is also an ad-hom), or any situation where a persons status or reputation is seen as boosting their argument e.g. pointing out hypocrisy; since political debates are usually about a person being given some kind of position of power, their person is usually relevant. Also, any situation where personal judgement, or testimony given that trust is relevant in those situation, so any reason to think someone is compromised, biased, or untrustworthy is relevant.