Yeah, but this looks like shit on purpose. The article's complaining about pages that look like shit by accident. Totally different, don't you know.
I clicked on the actual site. Took 5 seconds to load and a bunch of things wiggling on the page. Navigation was like snapchat style with full page ads. Lots or chrome reducing actual readable area. Contrast for text isn't that great for readability.
Definitely classifies as "looks like shit" in my book.
Unfortunately for you, the web _is_ for everyone. It's for everyone on HN, it's for people with disabilities, it's for people who have a 32" desktop screen that don't need your shitty hamburger menu and giant font size, it's for people with color blindness, it's for people who want to read the content, not marvel at your silly squiggly lines.
Saying that "my design is not for everyone" in such a dismissive manner is deliberately showing the middle finger to everyone who is outside of your group and people are calling you out on that.
Your submission is objectively ironic, regardless of what YOU think.