I don't think "malicious" quite does the delicacy of that sort of very abstract Marxist argument justice, though I'm not sure what word would be better.
"Unfair" doesn't quite do the job, either, though the author does point out that a privilege framework means that the same argument will be approved or ignored depending on who makes it.
"Consciousness itself is complicit." is kind of cool. It could almost be something from LW (or at least Peter Watts), but the author probably means something else by consciousness.
I agree, though to be fair the author himself seems to use malicious and fallacious to describe a privilege framework.
First, I am arguing that no one’s participation in public discourse should be denigrated by appeal to essential features of their identity. If we, as leftists, want to be unashamedly critical of discourse—as we should be—we should do so with reference to structures of power, such as heterosexual hegemony, rather than with reference to essential identities, such as the ‘straightness’ of particular individuals.
...
...Second, I am arguing t
You know the drill - If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post (even in Discussion), then it goes here.
And, while this is an accidental exception, future open threads should start on Mondays until further notice.