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 that to situate ideology in identity can not only be malicious, but also fallacious. If a self-identified queer person were to have written “How Gay Pride Backfires”, the privilege framework would collapse as an explanans, as it would no longer be able to appeal to the heterosexual privilege of the author to explain the danger of the argument. Importantly, however, in this alternative scenario, the queerness of the author would not render the article any less ideological and detrimental to the interests of sexual minorities.
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.
...