>>714172092
I'm not following. This was mostly a tactic used to criticize post-structuralist authors, which is a fancy way of saying they were full of shit. When challenged, they'd say that their arguments are small scale and reasonable, then go back to making grand proclamations only to repeat that they've been misunderstood when challenged again. It allows them to say two slightly different arguments depending if it's a sympathetic crowd or a critical crowd. It's a fancy way to say they were bullshit artists.