“Arrogant dickhead” is quite the projection since you came out of the blue, condescending to me, giving me writing tips and recommending I read more, ignoring my Ph.D. in philosophy, and pouncing on an article of mine that’s tied into a series of other articles.

You’re not obliged to read anything of mine, including other articles that help explain one of them. But if you stop to criticize something on such limited grounds, that’s your choice, and it indicates the depth of your character, not mine.

You say that little dialogue in the Foucault article isn’t “proof” of anything since it’s mere “debate tactics.” Of course, that’s fine: the issue of postmodernity or wokeness isn’t a math problem, so standards of strict proof are irrelevant. That dialogue isn’t even an argument; it’s an illustration of my interpretation of Foucault’s philosophy that underlies a lot of progressive, social justice culture. The point is that postmodern relativism and cynicism undermine themselves. The dialogue exhibits that self-refutation, whereas the article as a whole is supposed to show that that self-refutation happens.

Thus, there’s nothing “illogical” about it. You just prefer math to rhetoric. Alas, Medium isn’t a math journal, nor is it especially academic. So no, there’s nothing wrong with using hyperbole for rhetorical purposes. Some left-brained individuals might not like creative writing, but again, that’s their problem, not mine.

Let me know when you find the least bit of illogic in anything I’ve written.