It don't think the aim was to write a piece that people think sucks, it was to write about a person who people think sucks. There is a difference, or at least there used to be: I feel like increasingly people are unable to separate the literary value of a piece from the moral value of its protagonist. This piece reminds me of Charles Bukowski's books about the "lowlife" Hank Chinaski. Another more extreme example of a good book with a shitty protagonist is Lolita, which IMO couldn't be published today or Nabokov would be shunned and ostracised as a paedophile.

(None of this is to say you need to like the blog post, you might hate it on its own merits, but I definitely think there are a lot of people here who think it's a bad piece because they disagree with the choices the protagonist makes, which I think is a very limiting view.)

We're meant to judge the character in the story, but the story might suck for some as well. I personally did a double take and skimmed the unimportant bits because I loathed the character.

Imo the story could have easily been a piece of poetry and I would probably have enjoyed it more.

Yeah, unless you can get the cool kids to think you're cool for doing it. This kind of art is a social game, not an technical craft.