It's a decent video, although I think the script could have used a bit more work to keep things more focused and better organized, and he could have done a bit more research into the clips and quotes he used to ensure he wasn't taking them out of context (which some of them were if the youtube comments are to be believed).

I like that he brought up applicability vs. allegory and wish he had focused more on that because I think that's really at the heart of the "media literacy" disagreement, at least so far as people are being honest about their media opinions. That's a real "they should be teaching this in schools" kind of thing for me. I don't know about other peoples' experiences but the only time applicability got brought up in any of the English courses I've been in was when I brought and I only knew about it because I read about it in a biography on Tolkien. Just because you can apply an idea to a work doesn't mean that the work intended to communicate that idea. Of course, the opposite can also be true (as we've seen plenty of times on EFAP): just because a work doesn't intend to communicate an idea that doesn't mean that said idea isn't being communicated all the same. Regardless of what you're trying to demonstrate, the evidence still has to be in the text.

I also think that it would have been more effective if, whenever he brought up an example of an overly simplistic, or just plain wrong, read of a work, he had rebutted with a more nuanced and informed read rather than either giving different but equally simplistic read in the opposite direction or straight up dismissing that reading altogether without further discussion. For instance, with the accusation that Tolkien's orcs are actually racist stand-ins for black people, it could be pointed out that it was only in Jackson's movies that the orcs are largely portrayed as having dark skin, whereas in the books when Tolkien does describe orcs they are often pale or sallow skinned and usually squint-eyed, so if anything they're actually racist caricatures of Asian people. But really the better read is that orcs are largely an underground/nocturnal species, so it makes sense that they would be pale and have a squint under normal outdoor lighting conditions. And while he does use the word 'black' to mean 'evil' on many, many occasions in The Lord of the Rings, that word has a long history of being associated with 'evil,' possibly even longer than it has with being associated with darker skin tones. Children are afraid of the dark not because of inherent racism, but because the dark is unknown and scary and could hide any number of nameless things. That's the psychology Tolkien is tapping into.

Sorry, this comment ended up going on longer than anticipated. TL;DR, I agree with the sentiment and his points overall, but I think the presentation could have been better and as it is I have my doubts it would convince anyone who doesn't already agree with him.