The big one is point #10, which is another way of saying "if you reject my framing, that is evidence that my framing is correct". This lays several traps for the so-called "elite":
If they say there is no elite, that will be evidence that there is one, and they are in it, and a liar to boot.
If they grovel and apologize and offer to "be better", that legitimizes the framing, and will only be used against them.
The only feasible options are to join in as part of the mob, or literally say "I reject your framing".
The former solution has the obvious downside of reinforcing the attack on whatever characteristic defines " the elite" - usually not a specific indictment, just an instance of "privilege" (whiteness, maleness, grant-recipient-hood).
The latter solution means that unless one of you gives way in the framing question, it kills the possibility of having a conversation. And of course this will be used as evidence that you, the "elite", are exercising your power to suppress the purported victim.
You can't argue with someone using CT. It turns your reasonableness against you. This is particularly true when one of the defining virtues of the elite is "western rationality" as in critical race theory. But CT is inherently fallacious and circular, so there is always an attack on reason involved on some level.
Even though the Frankfurt School was reacting against marxism and communism, CT has some of the same characteristics, since it works by inventing novel class divides and then appeals to egalitarian justice to split people along those lines.
The end result when you always attack the "upper class" is of course the denial of everything that elevates, in other words, of virtue.
