I have no problem with criticizing anyone for putative inaccuracies, but the article you posted is full of the same sort of psycholgizing and bellyaching you're complaining about. Claiming the 1619 folks hate liberty and equality and want to wreck society is pure purple prose. It's also notable that none of the inaccuracies you're bittching about are actually spelled out, the author just waves at them from afar.
For all I know, you and he might be correct, I'm not super familiar with the 1619 project apart from the backlash against it. I don't base my takes here on it and I can't think of anyone else who does, why do you want to talk about it?
If you're using it as an example of how progressive rhetoric about US history makes people upset that's obviously correct. If you hate it because it's inaccurate or incompetent that's fine too. Just trying to see the context of your complaining, it's not totally clear.