Have you read the actual paper? If yes, then please some provide some details about why exactly you say this. If not, then it's scholarly malpractice to pronounce judgment about something you know nothing about. And if not and you do feel so confident pronouncing a judgment then I'd say it's yet another bit of circumstantial evidence in favor of the author's claims.
The central thesis: "... I argue that marginalized agents are better positioned to have knowledge of moral facts overall (e.g. that self-driving cars are wrong)...."
That is an empirical claim. It might be true; it might be false. It might be grounded in evidence; it might not be.
More sociology of knowledge disguised as epistemology.
Standpoint "epistemology" should give it a rest.
Have you read the actual paper? If yes, then please some provide some details about why exactly you say this. If not, then it's scholarly malpractice to pronounce judgment about something you know nothing about. And if not and you do feel so confident pronouncing a judgment then I'd say it's yet another bit of circumstantial evidence in favor of the author's claims.
The central thesis: "... I argue that marginalized agents are better positioned to have knowledge of moral facts overall (e.g. that self-driving cars are wrong)...."
That is an empirical claim. It might be true; it might be false. It might be grounded in evidence; it might not be.
What it is not... is a claim in epistemology.
So no you have not read the actual paper.