Using words like "quantum," "AI," and "blockchain" as examples, in all of those cases you have one community with a meaningful definition and another community with a meaningless definition. In deciding which definition is "better" one would typically go with the way it's defined in the community that uses it to mean something.
Which, to me, is a very apt statement in context. For example, when dealing with someone trying to dismiss an important point without consideration by labeling it with his own subculture's spun definition.
To wit: online libertarians screaming about how terrible identity politics is as a way to disparage their political enemies are absolutely practicing identity politics.
But haven't you heard? Anyone who places value on liberty is a libertarian, anyone who says something in today's hyper-connected age is "online" (because their ideas could make it to the internet, even if they didn't put them there themselves), and screaming is indistinguishable from speech because it exists on the same continuum. Furthermore, as you point out, identity politics is politics, but in an even deeper sense, politics can be anything. Furthermore, any claim can be construed as disparaging depending on the values of the listener, and "political enemies," if you think about it, really extends to anyone who is not yourself - because no two people believe exactly the same things. So, now that we realize the true meanings of all the words used, we are left with the sentence:
>Anyone speaking against anything are practicing activities.
It's true that the latter is more specific. I don't see how that makes it better.
[1] See? Identity politics at work. You don't seriously think no one targets libertarians via the same tricks, do you? You're literally falling for one in this very thread by discounting the discourse of "centrist political scientists" in favor of your in-group's spin. So when your in-group tells you to vote for someone, who are you going to believe? Them or the crazy centrists and their warped understanding of the evils of "identity politics?"