Even still, you said you vibed with it, and then credulously defended its essence. You could have easily noted that you were just being cheeky, but instead you launched into a defense of the core idea of the quote. So you're a little late to disavow it.
> The primary _stake_ (something gained or lost) in academics is not the individual academics' wellbeing, but publication and research output, which is often only relevant to very few within siloed fields.
You've identified low stakes, but as I said earlier, your position as a Ph.D. student has precluded you from high stakes discussions that occur in academia. Just because you're only familiar with the low stakes, does not mean there aren't high stake discussions and politics surrounding those that occur in academia. In many cases, the stakes can be as high as the continued longevity of institutions that have existed for over 100 years, with hundreds of millions to billions in assets, that serve as a homes and communities to tens of thousands of people, and are cornerstones of their local communities. Those seem like high stakes to me.
> or otherwise receive undeservedly _vicious_ (aggressive)
The definition you provided is "dangerously aggressive; marked by violence or ferocity". You can't just leave out key aspects of the definition to make it fit your narrative (and again, that's all your providing here is a narrative, no proof or evidence). How is anything you've noted "dangerous"? How is it "marked by violence or ferocity"?
> are _bitter_ (distressing to the mind) to the authors who receive mixed feedback as the process is out of their locus of control
To me, this really just gives the impression that you couldn't make it in academia. Not a dig, not everyone can. Congrats on your Ph.D., sounds like you had a bad experience, but that's not a reason to smear all academics with smarmy quips you can't substantiate.