This article seems to be anti-establishment for the sake of being anti-establishment. Intentionally "broken" English can be fun and cute and equally valid and

This article seems to be anti-establishment for the sake of being anti-establishment. Intentionally "broken" English can be fun and cute and equally valid and expressive as standard English - if not for the adoption of it - but I don't see much that actually improves on more standard English, in a more-or-less objective way. An improvement might be to promote a gender-neutral pronoun ('they' for example) and disambiguating "you" when it is unclear if you are talking about singular you, personal you or 'general' you. Or maybe this is totally unrelated to what the author is talking about.