This is one of the dumbest parts of this critique. He's apparently got a different definition of "aggression" than H+L, which is fine, but he's begging the que

This is one of the dumbest parts of this critique. He's apparently got a different definition of "aggression" than H+L, which is fine, but he's begging the question and assuming his definition is right and theirs is wrong and therefore their argument is wrong. To be clear, his definition is roughly that words and deeds can be aggressive by themselves, separate from any human intent (he bizarrely calls 'intent' the 'emotions' which is a weird inversion). This idea that the meaning of words and deeds can be separated from the intent of their creator is at the core of post-modernism. And needless to say, this question is not settled. But critiques like this one that pretend to be substantial but are actually just semantic disputes are not very interesting.