Gotcha, thanks for the explanation.

The flaw I've seen in this line of discussion (and I may not have seen all of it), is that you seem to be conflating a technique with an agenda.

Critical theory uses the analytical toolset of postmodern hermeneutics that seeks to identify and amplify alternative perspectives as a means of questioning a prevailing narrative or school of thought.

This is distinct from the worldview presented by Critical Theory, which views all language as an instrument of power and thus is inherently skeptical of any and every traditional, dominant, or widespread narrative.

Wokeness and Critical Race Theory are particular instantiations of this broader philosophical movement as applied to Western--and specifically American--politics.

Identifying the rhetorical tools of postmodern hermeneutics and pointing those out is perfectly fair.  It is not, in my opinion, a particularly strong rhetorical device, and identifying such a weakness helps your interlocutor further develop her arguments, which in turn may produce more fruitful dialogue.

The fallacy that I observe, nostr:npub1jlrs53pkdfjnts29kveljul2sm0actt6n8dxrrzqcersttvcuv3qdjynqn, is that you are seeing postmodern hermeneutical rhetoric and imputing to nostr:npub1m4ny6hjqzepn4rxknuq94c2gpqzr29ufkkw7ttcxyak7v43n6vvsajc2jl the worldview of Critical Theory as a result.  That is a non sequitur.  In fact, anyone who's followed Laeserin for any amount of time would know that she is an orthodox Catholic, which requires an adherence to tradition and authority antithetical to Critical Theory.  Thus we need not immediately assume that she is attempting to advance some sort of woke victim ideology.

I think you have fair critiques to offer, but perhaps they were not offered in a constructive spirit.  Everyone is getting rather uppity over this whole conversation on little provocation.  I don't think that's necessary.