It's good to engage with these ideas, because they might be wrong, and it's good to have a solid debate about them.

However, how on earth did you decide that the original author meant anything OTHER than to do this with Critical Theory? That is, you remove the influence by raising awareness of where the influence has taken hold, explaining why it's harmful, perhaps pointing out that while it has a degree of truth it also provides a highly distorted picture of reality, and providing sound reasons for why people should do something else?

The censorship, provoking your "just wow" is your addition.

Almost any argument is "just wow" if you add unreasonable things to it.

I mean, you're basically saying the original author should be tried for war crimes and genocide. Just...wow. (Except I just made that up and added it to your argument for no reason. See how that doesn't work?)