While I think most of your points are very well taken, I have to push back on this:

"Countless studies show that most active mutual funds (i.e. mutual funds where professionals buy and sell stocks with the goal of beating the market) underperform the market.

And yet, there are still a shockingly high number of people who think that they can consistently beat the market — as if we can all be Warren Buffet. Even if it were possible, to be able to do so consistently over the long-term and cover the fees you pay would be basically impossible."

Yes, perhaps "most" or at least "many" actively managed funds underperform the market over the long term. However, there are quite a few that do outperform the market over the long term (say 15 years).

As I wrote in this piece, https://themakingofamillionaire.com/would-it-surprise-you-that-you-may-make-more-money-in-active-funds-c8bebebc05af, my personal rate of return investing in active funds for over 18 years is higher than the S&P 500's total return by about 1%/year.

In this piece, https://medium.com/alpha-beta-blog/warren-buffet-recommends-index-investing-really-best-for-your-money-a52820c20f59, I compare a slate of Vanguard low-cost index funds to a slate of actively managed T. Rowe Price funds, and find that investing the same constant annual amounts over 15 years, the latter would give you a x2.3 higher portfolio value.

So no, it isn't at all impossible to consistently outperform the market after accounting for actively managed mutual fund fees. You just need to develop a system that lets you pick the right funds (which I've been able to do fairly well).