> Their argument is demonstrative rather than persuasive (although there is a persuasive component, but they expect interlocutors to be familiar with structural

> Their argument is demonstrative rather than persuasive (although there is a persuasive component, but they expect interlocutors to be familiar with structuralist theory, which is not unreasonable in an academic setting). I think this is spot-on. > They are showing people what it feels like to be unexpectedly and unjustly placed into an out-group. But I don't think this is the intent. Rather, the goal is to create a place where the structures they oppose are weaker/nonexistent. A consequence may be that people with privilege are made uncomfortable and/or put in an out-group, and that is fine because as you said this "is something that they have a lifetime's experience of." And that discomfort is even seen positively as a sign that the culture is going in the right direction, but it is just a symptom, not the goal.