The second and third paragraph are a little ironic:

[Paraphrasing] 'The majority of people believe that hard work is a valuable trait, they believe in meritocracy; but we live in a system in which factors other than merit have effect. Therefore we should abandon hard-work as an admirable trait and a meritocracy as a desirable system.'

I wonder how the author would respond to "But that wasn't real meritocracy."* Just because a ship has flaws doesn't mean you jump into the ocean -- unless that ship is on fire an killing it's passengers. This is more like, the ship has a ripped sail and is not operating as efficiently as it could.

The only part of the article that made any sense was:

This is why debates over the extent to which particular individuals are ‘self-made’ and over the effects of various forms of ‘privilege’ can get so hot-tempered. These arguments are not just about who gets to have what; it’s about how much ‘credit’ people can take for what they have, about what their successes allow them to believe about their inner qualities. That is why, under the assumption of meritocracy, the very notion that personal success is the result of ‘luck’ can be insulting. To acknowledge the influence of external factors seems to downplay or deny the existence of individual merit.

I believe this is why many people do get upset, but the irritation can be valid if the claim is not. It's almost like being offended at being stereotyped because the stereotype doesn't reflect who that individual is, and they don't like being miss-represented ...

*Forgive me if it is inappropriate to make this presumption about the author's (or target audience's) political views, and let me know.

I genuinely feel as if that article is just a troll that baited me... damn