That's certainly possible, but it's more likely I just wasn't challenging someone's challenging of someone else, and I don't tend to get into a lot of arguments related to identity politics, except with people who claim there is no such thing as identity politics. It seems to me that any kind of argument about argument can easily turn into a hall of mirrors recursive problem. I could have argued that Matt Bruenig uses Anti-Identitarian Deference to stifle arguments against his arguments against Identitarian Deference. But that wouldn't have been productive.

I thought his point that the Letter uses a kind of Identitarian Deference to argue against so-called Cancel Culture was interesting.