I was being a little bit obtuse maybe, but the article is such a mess and the premise is so flawed that I think it’s worthy of mocking.
High end minimalist products are often pretentious (I guess? There aren’t many of these kind of shops in my part of the world as far as I know), but it’s a massive leap of logic to argue that an aesthetic choice is a moral one and even more that “It is just another form of conspicuous consumption, a way of saying to the world: “Look at me! Look at all of the things I have refused to buy, and the incredibly-expensive, sparse items I have deemed worthy instead!”
Even the author has to reluctantly admit that there is no overarching theory of minimalism (There are a million variations – fitting all your belongings into a single box, small-house or van living, radical de-cluttering, extreme purges of technology or social activity, etc – but they all hold the same vague, usually unspoken level of superiority) so she has to make one up and then make it broad enough to be able to tear it down. She also makes up the items they bought, their cost, the reasons for buying them etc. I suspect you would struggle to find a person who really thought “Look at me! Look at all of the things I have refused to buy, and the incredibly-expensive, sparse items I have deemed worthy instead” and would look in horror if you tried to make the accusation. There is no real link between ‘minimalism by choice’ and ‘forced minimalism’ and she needs to make a straw man up in order to create one.
She also tries to tack on a weird feminist angle at the end –all the stuff they are making us throw away are the things that women like!!! Coincidence no?
From what I can tell, the article is fundamentally a dislike of and an attack on some people having money when others don’t and you could replace ‘minimalism’ with sports car, any car, big house, any house, going on holiday abroad, going on holiday anywhere etc etc etc. She’s taken something that she personally has an aesthetic dislike of and created a moral narrative around it. I don’t quite know what she wants from these people she’s invented – should the rich only be allowed to own fewer things if they admit they are shallow and immoral? Or do they just have to over-consume so that we can openly see their greed?