This seems to be a common pattern on HN where users make very strong negative claims about some person/organisation without even attempting to justify it.
I wonder if this is a conscious tactic where people who don't like some person/organisation attempt to attach negative emotions to it.
Hoping that people unfamiliar with it would feel negatively about it, without really knowing why they feel that way. "I just remember someone saying that it is bad."
Edit: On second though it is very unlikely we will have a productive discussion here. People never seem to have been able to handle this type of discussion on HN and judging by the response this isn't the exception.
So since the quality of both the article and the comments are low I would instead recommend people to flag the story.
Its very well crafted bullshit, but if you're already even vaguely sympathetic to it, it registers as "thoughtful", and even if you're not at all, it might take a minute to parse out that none of the pieces actually fit and the conclusion is both foregone and bad.
The way is too consistent to not have someone behind it carefully selecting writers and submissions. I think the writers think they're saying worthwhile things, and I think whoever's editing them is exploiting their good intentions.
It reminds me of how Gawker would exploit well-intentioned but inexperienced writers to drive ad impressions with poorly-argued positions on social justice. The writers didn't know they were dupes, and some of the editors probably didn't, but someone up the chain knew what was going on.