I completely skipped the Pit of Despair and Suspicious Return to Ethics sections, which is about the halfway point.

The main simple idea I personally gathered from the article is:

Almost everyone can say they agree with each other about an issue(s). They should also be able to agree to work together because more needs to be done, but generally there's a divide instead. The divide is when "activists / moralists" want to take a quotidian / ethical approach, while "critics" want to take a structural approach. An example of the problem this causes is a critic vocalising that the "time" of they as an audience is being disrespected by "online surveys." Some of the activists handle this by attacking the character of the critics, because they see it as problems with the current status quo again being ignored.

Imho eventually the divide balances out enough that a social change starts to happen. So the solution is to try not be too dismissive of others, even if they're currently saying the "workers revolution" is the solution ;)