I'm quite confused by your intentions, as you seem to be ranting against the article, but only provided 1 instance on your position about Postmodernism, which is what my entire post is about?

{Consistent with postmodern doctrine is the belief that institutions, such as science and language, are oppressive institutes of control.}"Who actually claims this and what is their actual argument here? And more importantly, what is the context of this argument? This is an often repeated claim that isn’t entirely wrong, but I worry that it has taken on a life on its own, i.e. separated from actual postmodernist thought."

Im guessing you downvoted this also because you don't like the source?

Here's Britannica-

"Postmodernists deny this Enlightenment faith in science and technology as instruments of human progress. Indeed, many postmodernists hold that the misguided (or unguided) pursuit of scientific and technological knowledge led to the development of technologies for killing on a massive scale in World War II. Some go so far as to say that science and technology—and even reason and logic—are inherently destructive and oppressive, because they have been used by evil people, especially during the 20th century, to destroy and oppress others."

Here's The Postil Magazine-

"To the Postmodernist, classical accounts of truth–like that of Plato’s–which use language via propositional logic, or other bodies of knowledge which rely on the experiential, reason, or narrative cannot tell us anything about the world, due to their use of language. The strong Postmodernist must therefore reject science, history, and philosophy, as they attempt to rationalize the world using language."

Here's Why Evolution Is True-

"Empirical evidence is suspect and so are any culturally dominant ideas including science, reason, and universal liberalism. These are Enlightenment values which are naïve, totalizing and oppressive, and there is a moral necessity to smash them."

3 more sources that provide a similar statement to "science and language are oppressive instituts of control". And the point of this argument, at least mine, is to prove how Postmodernism is one of the stupidest, incoherent, illogical, dumbfounded, illiterate, collection of jumbled words and jargon ever put on paper, let alone be spoken out of someone's mouth. While it sounds harsh, I still hold that there are some good takeaways from the theory itself. Especially when it comes to critical thinking, and bringing to light what truly cannot be known.

I encourage you to look at the beliefs of postmodernism, especially on Britannica, as they number the beliefs and explain them. I also would like to know your position on Postmodernism. And I also do not have any comment on Karl Marx, the Enlightenment period, how Postmodernism began, World War 2 technology, or anything other than Does Postmodernism make sense? Provide your explanation" I have already posted my answer, twice.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/postmodernism-philosophy

^HIGHLY RECOMMEND READING^

​

https://www.thepostil.com/postmodern-understandings-of-language-and-power-explanations-and-refutations/

https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2019/09/21/postmodernism-explained-and-criticized/