[radioactivist]

The article/your video make the assumption that light is particle and that those particles are independent and each carry polarization. While we know those assumptions to be true, the classical theory of light is not a theory of particles, but of fields/waves. So when you're asking whether there is a classical explanation that's where you should look. And if you do so, you get something perfectly consistent.

[I.e. if you assumed quantum mechanics didn't exist and that Maxwell's equations were the ground truth, you could explain this behaviour without any issue (with some leeway to define a polarizer)].

I think if you try and use that line of thought strictly (only call an explanation "classical" if you can explain with discrete photon particles), you'd probably have to argue that basically all of electromagnetism is fundamentally quantum mechanical. Again, while not strictly wrong (given our present knowledge), this goes too far for me (and I'd imagine most people).

Also: The "three-polarizer" experiment from your quoted video has a perfectly simple explanation in terms of electromagnetic waves. You use a polarizer to get light polarized along say "y" == (0,1). If you put another polarizer in front of it along "x" == (1,0) then the projection is of the E-field is zero and no light passes through. Now add another polarizer at 45 deg between the two: it then projects the E-field onto its axis, mapping it from (0,E) to (E/2,E/2) (magnitude is 1/sqrt(2)). The E-field now has a non-zero component along "x". So light comes out the final polarizer.