I think it's pretty telling that as aggressively Ratpilled as this writer seems to be (in that they still seem to be accepting rationalist framing uncritically, including a high level of discomfort in calling a spade a racist, as it were.) their toned-down critique here still cuts against the heart of who Scott tries to present himself as. Even if you interpret the subjective parts of this analysis as favorably as possible for Scott, the picture that emerges is still of a right-wing idealogue who is either hiding it or is in denial about the limitations of the worldview they've built for themselves.