[tlb]

> the assumption behind this very essay is that there is such a thing as a rigid, singular concept of "truth"

I don't think that assumption is required by the essay. It says that people with orthodox privilege believe that anything outside their orthodoxy must be untrue. So it merely claims that certain people believe (often falsely) that they can conclude something is untrue because it's unorthodox. A crisp universal definition of truth isn't necessary for them to believe this.

[neoplatonian]

If one gets rid of those assumptions, the whole concept of orthodox privilege would be purely rhetorical. Here is how this essay would change if you replace "truth" (which does not really exist in the political sphere) by "morally unacceptable to certain groups of people"

"They literally can't imagine a true statement that would get them in trouble." would be replaced by "They literally cannot image a statement which is morally acceptable to certain groups of people (to which they belong) would get them in trouble with those groups of people". Which is completely fair and reasonable.