His point one would make all typologies bullshit. It's a misunderstanding of categories. The point of a typology IS to be "laughably broad", so as to find common patterns. I'm reminded of the old Adventure game, where you could be in a "maze of twisty passages, all different." If, in order for a typology to be meaningful it must identify every single combination of human differences, you have no context to figure anything out. Similarly, the Adventure game had a "maze of twisty little passages, all alike." Whether "all different", or "all alike", each contains null information that allows one to navigate the maze. A simple set of categories distinguishes things enough to navigate personalities, in general.
Number 2, oh no, it's Western-White-Culture-centric. That obviously makes it invalid. Never mind that his argument nullifies all culture-centric thought systems. Only universal thought systems allowed. Waitaminute, whatever happened to everyone being different?
Number 3 is a remarkable straw man, that supposedly MBTI implies that thinkers don't have feelings and feelers can't think. It means that he has no understanding of typology, as one of the central points of any book on MBTI is that the dichotomies are preferences, not absolute either-or binary personality traits.
Number 4, there's a THEME that intuition is better than sense. And of course no proponents of typology denounce that theme as nonsense.
Number 5, on the function order being arbitrary. Answer: it's a typology. All typologies are arbitrary. The question isn't whether its arbitrary, but whether it is usefully descriptive.
Number 6, typology describes a world of fractured and incomplete people? No, typology only describes aspects of 100% complete people.
Number 7, it's not scientific. Perhaps the best argument, except it's a non-argument. Typologies/categories are how people start to understand the world, before science advances to the point that we know WHY things are different. In chemistry, prior to atomic theory, we had types of elements that we could classify by various objective traits (how things mixed together, etc.). It took, much longer to have a theory of protons and neutrons and electrons to fully describe how each atom behaved.
Interestingly, nearly all of this guy's output on YouTube is videos about MBTI and functions that are far more accurate than what he posted here. As near as I can tell, he had some kind of epiphany that typology is meaningless, posted this video, and then posted a "Goodbye YouTube" video.