Hmmm, well, his very first post ("Who Doesn't Go Nazi?") is about being an anti-vaxxer, saying how anti-vaxxers would resist becoming Nazis, and comparing anti-vaxxers to the Jews, which already has me questioning his critical thinking skills.
I looked at a couple of his other articles, and despite being a good writer, there's some subtle, and not-so-subtle, points he misses. E.g., in "Storms and Teacups", he thinks that Jezebel celebrating women's "equality and self-determination" means they are hypocritical to criticize Michelle Williams for dressing up as a Native American, and the fashion industry because they "didn't objectify a woman in a tasteful enough fashion".
This shows he doesn't understand that 1) "equality and self-empowerment" are not to come at others' expense, an unstated, but real, caveat, he seems to have missed, and 2) criticism of an industry doesn't have to involve every possible complaint all the time. That's just editorial focus.
Ironically, towards the end of the article, he says "We don't want to talk about the full complexity at play here", while parroting standard responses. I'm 99% sure he spends his time digging up things that confirm his viewpoint, locating the 1% of outliers that support him, and no time engaging with the scholarship of the majority of the other side. It's like trying to talk about racism using only Candace Owens' talking points.