A true statement, but not necessarily relevant. For instance, I cannot understand Aztec culture, because I have not experienced it. I condemn it nonetheless.

Outsiders attempting to generalize, analyze, dissect, and fix things about cultures they barely understand more often than not cause historical and irreversible damage.

Maybe it can also cause progress? For instance, the condemnation of Apartheid by the western world probably helped end it.

(I don't mean to say arranged marriage is the same as Apartheid, obviously.)

What I just wrote may be controversial, but it does not make it false.

The difference is to what degree does another agent, external to the system in question (here, the system that has apartheid), feels they have the right to intervene and accelerate the change in a direction they judge is fit.

Sometimes you can argue that everybody is better off -- people inside the system and outside (on the outside, I would argue it is mostly a psychological benefit, at least immediately after the change is induced) -- but the arguments are never perfect. And to think that there is a "correct" side to it is (usually) a fallacy.

Is this actually a valid use of "Reductio Ad Hitlerum"? Surely such a thing is rare and beautiful.

I think that's nonsense.

Non-controversial statement: Humans manage to use the power of reason to understand all sorts of things which are far outside our own experience such as quantum mechanics, the dynamics of stars, high dimensional geometry, neural networks, etc.

Regardless of all that, a different human experience is beyond the reach of reason?

(Note: not defending the article, just criticizing the idea that only club insiders can understand a club.)

The subjective understanding is merely the personal perception of something. It is a joint property of the observer and the thing being observed. Why elevate the subjective understanding of one observer over another (insiders over outsiders, in this case) assuming equal information/rationality on both their parts?