This was my take as well, the author immediately attacks people and not the arguments and classifies them as lesser. Frankly, I don't know what this person has contributed to software engineering that merits them speaking this way.
I try not to be in the business of deciding who has and has not earned a particular mode of speech, but I think the consistently-high volume of votes and discussions on Rachel's posts should show that the substance is there, many many times over :)
Votes only mean that they write things that agree with popular opinion. I find it funny that you say that accomplishments don't matter and then immediately use the amount of votes and discussion to give this person credibility.
Anyway, if someone writes an article being a proponent for elitism they should have accomplishments to back it up. This person has done nothing and they don't deserve to be writing this kind of article. Maybe if this came from someone like John Carmack I would listen but I don't think he would be dumb enough to write this.
When did I say that accomplishments don't matter? I worked in the author's sphere of influence at a previous previous company and witnessed them firsthand on a regular basis. I would agree that the corporate "fog-of-war" makes it easy for the accomplishments of very skilled people to disappear within the Googles and Facebooks of the world, but for certain people I imagine being away from the mouths of the outside world makes it worth being away from their eyes too. Popularity is just one of those things that helps me trust that something may exist even in cases where I can't personally see it. The crowd aren't always right, but I think their approval can often signify my need for a second or third look at something I've reflexively dismissed. Attitude is a tangential but separate detail that would be inappropriate for me to have opinions on, but I can at least say that if there is any it is deserved :)
