No, I'm criticizing tone and content. And I don't think "vapid" is a word you get to use here: I probably read this person's blog more carefully than most of his supporters on the thread did.
> it's all sort of comically smug
Tonal critique, valid but not worth much.
> everybody else in the entire world is wrong, and here is a 7-point axiomatic derivation proving it
What argument doesn't take this form? If you're making an argument you yourself agree with, then yeah, the implication is that you disagree with people who disagree with it. Axiomatic derivations will be involved, because... why wouldn't they be?
> much of it depending on specific definitions of specific words
I think what you must mean here is surprising definitions of certain words (otherwise, again, what argument doesn't have this characteristic?). I personally was not surprised by the usage of any of the major words in the article. Certainly some of the words are really "improper nouns", like "diversity", but it's clear from context what the different sorts of diversity being discussed are.
> Check-mate, atheists!
Maybe tonal critique?
The use of the definite article here is surprising. I get the impression you have an argument for DEI in mind that you think everybody has in mind. Which one is it?
The first paragraph is about the source reducing things to axioms. The second paragraph is clearly about tone.
Where is the criticism of the content and not the tone of the article?
Sure, it would have been a better article if they had done that. What are some good books covering that? I haven't really heard much of an argument for it, merely brow-beating and social pressure. Ibram X. Kendi doesn't count, his arguments are ridiculously facile.