Although to be sure, there are a few sections that looked low contrast to me. When I checked them with a WCAG altorithm contrast checker, they all easily exceeded AAA limits.

I concluded that the page might have been intending to show that you still had a lot of flexibility in color choices, while meeting WCAG standards. (The WCAG standards are mentioned on the page).

Of course, it's possible the WCAG algorithm/standard is at fault -- it is hard to totally capture human perception in a measurement (not to mention different humans are different), and there are other times I have had color combinations that I find hard to read but which pass the WCAG measurement.

But the WCAG standard is, again, mentioned on the page, with no disclaimers.

I think there may be something worth talking about going on, but I'm definitely not convinced it's what you think -- what you think is that some sections of the page, expressing the author's argument, are deliberately made low-contrast and hard to read, expecting that the reader would know which are which?

Maybe. I guess we'd have to ask the authors.

I still am curious if you wanted to identify which sections of the page you are identifying as deliberately too-low-contrast. I'm curious if they are the same ones as me, and I'm curious how they do on the WCAG metric (I didn't look for every single section myself).