Tools should be ergonomic and should have guards and other safety mechanisms to make it easy to do what you intend to do, and difficult to do things that you do not intend to do. C tends to do the opposite of that. It makes certain things that you want to do more difficult than necessary, while making it very easy to do things that no reasonable person would intend to do. Evee's original post highlights that.

In fact, if you look at this post, some of the so-called defenses seem more like indictments to me. For example, in the increment/decrement section, there is this:

But look, there’s an even more direct argument: the ++ and -- operators are not even “one” operator. There is a prefix and a postfix variation of them that do slightly different things. The usual semantics is that the prefix ones evaulate to the already-modified expression, while postfix ones yield the original value. This can be very convenient, as in different contexts, code might require the value of one state or another, so having both versions can lead to more concise code and less off-by-one errors. Therefore, one can’t simply say that “++ is equivalent to += 1“, as it is simply not true: it’s not equivalent to at least one of them. In particular, in C, it’s not equivalent with the postfix increment operator.

This illustrates exactly the point that Evee was trying to make. It's hard enough to justify having increment and decrement as their own operators (as opposed to a performance optimization implemented by the compiler). Having two variants, which work exactly the same in the vast majority of instances, but do subtly different things in e.g. if-statements and for-loops is complete and utter madness.