By epistemic violence I meant the attempt to categorically exclude a set narrative terms that, for better or worse, lots of people rely on, because they don't fit the agenda. I probably overstated my point, though, since there is no way you could do this in any practical way. So let me rephrase. Any inquiry into "Why . . . " (supposing that for the moment this question is still valid) would, in my view, begin and end with questions of the history political economy, as broadly construed as you like. But, why would you want to categorically exclude descriptive and analytic languages, narratives, and terms that inform political economy and history? (i.e., mania, panic, depression, redemption, struggle etc). Especially if they will certainly be important to many people both participating in and suffering in (yes, it's true, you're probably going to have to hurt some people, if not their feelings, then something else for . . .) the revolution, whatever that turns out to be? Why not use them?
But cultural privilege, I meant the privilege to have the kind of education that Carrol talks about, and that many on this list have.
As for the blurb on Zizek's book, it's true I've never been fond of the "subversive core" business. I prefer the "pedagogically useful" or "strategically resonant" core--or something like that.
All best Christian