The support is that the author needed to neutralize competence, risk, skin in the game, and the real as a straw man before the rest of his points could be made.

That rhetorical neutralization for its own sake, and holding it as equivalent to a positive case is the belief in nothing that I referred to. We can do fancy versions of 'no, you' but the Achillies heel of a lot of critical ideas is that they are in fact, only critics and spectators who don't have any respectable standing for the things they are problematizing, and reconciling that with the actual experience of the man in the arena is the limit on the value of their contribution.

My point is, having opinions about the things others actually, physically do, particularly from the perspective of the artifacts of ideology, is arguing from a moral position of weakness. The reason that Breaking Bad meme is so popular is because there is an essential quality to the statement, "we are not the same." The competency of the man in the arena is not something one gets to affect.