This (and the rest of your followup) is a really strange strategy for a reply. Did you not notice that you were basically giving a case-study in many of the attitudes the original article calls out as problematic along with explanations for why they're problematic?

Plus you didn't manage to answer a single substantive criticism, and spent much of your effort trying to find which stereotyping-box to plunk Aquareon in.

There are multiple counterarguments that could be tried (e.g. there's a "police-your-own" axis with a few back-and-forth arguments that might be worth going down; there are some assumptions that can be challenged and some characterizations whose completeness can be disputed; the style of inference over direct statement can be exploited to run with a topic where you get to choose the boundaries and present the initial facts).

I do think you're right that a certain set of people will not be the least bit sympathetic to Aquareon's message here, and would be completely sympathetic to yours, but what I don't understand is why you would bother saying so, and then continuing in a way that lends additional credence to Aquareon's claims. The set of people who already agree with your perspective doesn't need to hear it, do they? And anyone who might not be 100% convinced is liable to move in the wrong direction, aren't they? So--are you sure you've thought this through?