Did you stop reading? The direct criticisms of wokeism are longer than the criticisms of the right's illegitimate "anti-woke" attack strategy; most of the article is about neither, but rather why it's okay to not have a perfect definition as long as you get the gist right enough. If you start reading at "The following are the broad brushstrokes and baggage of wokeism as it stands today:", that's fulfills the second half of the promise of the title. (To fulfill the first half, he argues that you could be against wokeism even if you can't perfectly define it; in the second, he argues that there are serious problems with wokeism at least as-somewhat-nebulously-defined in a way consistent with what its advocates promote.)