I don't really disagree with anything you say above.

Being a minority does not invalidate the opinion; but it does mean that any action taken in light of that opinion would be an imposition upon the majority.

Even more than that, in the given context, it was part of a refutation of part of the argument being made (seemed to me).

In a different context, I could easily read "You and your ilk are a tiny minority" as a personal attack. But I suspect your understanding of the work "ilk" is somewhat different than my perception of it based on the ways I've most often heard it used (usually as part of a slur). I make no claim to my perception being more accurate. Just because you made me curious if others share my perception, I found that the current voting at urbandictionary selects:

Pronoun. Represents a group of items of the same type. Has a connotation of the typed group being of bad or questionable character.

Don't get involved with those of that ilk.

My only point being that there are some people (not just me) who will tend to interpret "ilk" as derogatory, even lacking supporting evidence. I did check just a couple of definitions of "ilk" before I wrote the node you replied to and found no clear indications of modern usage being documented as derogatory, just the history of shifting meaning.

Offense isn't given; it is taken.

Exactly. I've long lamented that the verb in English is "to offend". There should be no such verb. There should instead be a (single word) verb that means "to be offended". If there is an action on the other side of the interaction, then it should only be expressed as "try to get one to be offended".