The Softwar thesis reframes something much more fundamental than just Bitcoin. And that is the main reason it is so divisive.
Human civilization is based on the nonviolent hierarchies we can build to efficiently scale our productivity. We call wars and violent conflict a failure state of the natural, peaceful order.
Softwar presents the opposite view. That peace is a temporary state between short-lived violent restructurings. The creation of non-violent hierarchies introduces an attack surface where anyone with a good story to tell can redirect all of the societies resources to himself. When people realize this is occuring, the natural correction mechanism is to violently remove the exploiter and restore the system to a non-exploited state.
If the violent means of dealing with exploitation is removed, the exploit can persist forever. Meaning that a non-violent and pacifist population can never return to a "fair" system. This is the opposite of the view that non-violent reform can restore fairness and reset exploitation.
Which is true, and which is a fantasy? Softwar provides extensive historical evidence that it's framing is correct, and that violent reform is a direct outcome of non-violent attempts at reform. The more non-violent means are tried, the larger the downsides of the violent restructuring.
What we've seen in the past century is that via the exploitation of money, the masters of that exploitation method have bought up all the means for violent reform and use it for their own ends while removing it as an option for the general population. The asymmetry makes the violent correction of this exploitation impossible to perform, leaving us all stuck with no way out.
The argument that Bitcoin is non-violent violence via cyberspace is the thesis' answer to this dilemma. If people can use Bitcoin as a means to reset exploitation to a fair state, then real reform can occur. We say "Bitcoin fixes this" all the time. I believe that Softwar provides the exact mechanics of why this is true.