Here's a very good video about Phil Fish that's also by him. I think this video series is the Anita Sarkeesian video that he was planning on doing for a while. And as for the actual video itself, I'm not sure if this explanation is as accurate or prevalent as the video suggests. Take his example of the drinker getting butthurt about the sober person at the party. If his conjecture is correct, then there should be a different in reaction between the sober person being sober because it was a lifestyle choice and the sober person being sober because they lived a sheltered life and wasn't exposed to alcohol. Let's say they had strict religious parents. Then, shouldn't the drinker be far less offended by the sheltered person? Same thing with the vegan example. A white vegan would provoke outrage while an Indian vegan wouldn't? I'm not sure if I fully buy his explanation, and it seems like this video is going to support whatever thesis he's trying to push in his video series.
Your counter-argument doesn't make any sense to me for two reasons: 1) If your parents decided for you that drinking was wrong, the same moral judgment was made, it was just made by some other stranger. 2) The person that feels like they're being judged may not know why someone doesn't drink, but the feeling of being "judged" is more of an introspective, hypothetical thing than "this person is literally judging me." I don't know that I complete agree with this explanation, as a general rule, but I think it is interesting and there could very well be a lot of truth in it.