It's not that bad, really. This doesn't seem like it should have been published but it is perfectly understandable with a little effort. The problem is that it is super basic. I would expect this from overzealous freshmen at a humanities program. (I am someone that has graded many such papers.) The writer is simply trying to do too much in super simplified terms. You really can't charge this with being esoteric as it is not really engaging with any particular theoretical argument that is in contention or even using any real technical terms. Real theory brackets, it does not try to do everything and precision is a marker of professionalism. The writer is not really wrong in what he or she is saying--but he or she really isn't saying anything to begin with.
The writer of the blog sounds just as dumb to me with his comments. If this sends him to a frenzy maybe academia is not for him. Usually these types are angry failed or failing academics projecting their insecurities onto others.
If you want professional bad writing, read some Homi Bhabha.
Edit: just saw that the blogger used to teach at U. Chicago. Pretty surprising. Usually someone with that kind of a gig understands academic writing and doesn't take themself too seriously or get agitated by work such as this that will never be taken seriously. (Why would such a person be reading this????) But if someone from that school is still railing against "postmodernism" (which is no longer a thing or something that any serious academic has debated in 20 years, unless you are teaching Jameson that one class) I think they really aren't in the pit any more, hence frustrations. There is no clearer way to say that the last time you were were professionally engaged in the discourse was the 1990s.
whyevolutionistrue.com
