This is why I reflexively flag any articles I see from it on the front page. I tried taking the site seriously a few times and worked through all the assertions, but I came to the same conclusion you did. They have a certain way, and that way makes them not worth engaging with.

The way is too consistent to not have someone behind it carefully selecting writers and submissions. I think the writers think they're saying worthwhile things, and I think whoever's editing them is exploiting their good intentions.

It reminds me of how Gawker would exploit well-intentioned but inexperienced writers to drive ad impressions with poorly-argued positions on social justice. The writers didn't know they were dupes, and some of the editors probably didn't, but someone up the chain knew what was going on.