I don't find the argument to be undermined by this. From my perspective, his strong statements against React read as deliberately lacking in nuance just like the conventional wisdom of "just use React and don't think too hard about it". It's a deliberate overvorrection away from the status quo. There can be room for nuance once the default assumption has been shaken.

I get why people are offended or find it unhelpful. If you read through his Reckoning series, I hope you'll understand some of the righteous anger he has for organisations that fail to serve the user, even when public service is their explicit purpose.

Blaming it on React may not be the most effective strategy. Who knows. But I still find value in the message.