I don't disagree with his viewpoint; his arguments are irrelevant. A good way to understand the purpose of a piece of writing is to summarize the purpose of each passage into a single sentence.

Here is my attempt; feel free to skip it.

Bitcoin apps aren't innovative.

The Bitcoin scripting language is restrictive.
Ethereum has been successful.

Nothing. (It may or may not be so.)

The restrictiveness of Bitcoin's scripting language is a legacy issue, and the scripting language is very important.

Bitcoin is amazing to some, but not all.

Bitcoin hasn't innovated for seven years, but Ethereum is innovating right now.

Ethereum is the future of digital currency.

Bitcoin's scripting language is restrictive and hard to use.

Ethereum is easy for developers to use.

Ethereum looks more familiar.

Ethereum can do things bitcoin can't.

Ethereum has everything in the same protocol, which is better than layers.

Ethereum has better developer resources.

Bitcoin applications aren't innovative.

Ethereum has lots of new innovative applications and more to come.

A digital currency is only as good as its applications.
The creator of Ethereum is a good leader and a nice person.

The leader of Bitcoin left and the remaining people don't work together.

Bitcoin developers and figureheads are mean and petty.

Bitcoin isn't growing and that's bad.

The Ethereum developers are innovative.

Bitcoin isn't changing quickly and that's bad.

Ethereum is faster and provides money to more miners.

Nothing (It may or may not be so.)

Ethereum hasn't had any large schisms or internal conflict.

Ethereum allows you to do more than you currently can in Bitcoin.

There are security risks, but it isn't Ethereum's fault.

Proof of stake is awesome.

Nothing. (It may or may not be so.)

Nothing. (It may or may not be so.)

In summary, Ethereium may replace Bitcoin because it is innovating faster, has a nicer community, and has a better developer community. (This is the thesis!)

I am neutral

Digital currencies are rapidly changing.

Technology is great.

And now we've located the thesis!
What is very real, though, is the possibility that Ethereum blows past Bitcoin entirely. There is nothing that Bitcoin can do which Ethereum can’t. While Ethereum is less battle tested, it is moving faster, has better leadership, and has more developer mindshare. First mover advantage is challenging to overcome, but at current pace, it’s conceivable.

In summary, Bitcoin is restrictive, inferior, stagnant, and has a community that is fragmented, lacking innovative developers, filled with mean people, and has no leader. That's the message this blog post deliberately sends. However, none of these arguments are valid. Being restrictive is not a bad thing in itself. Being simple isn't a bad thing. Being stable isn't a bad thing. Calling a community fragmented does not make it so. Developers don't matter; digital currency is valuable because it's a way of storing and exchanging value, not because of related software. How much someone in the community cusses doesn't mater. That Gavin is gone doesn't matter. Calling a community leaderless does not make it so. The people who have bitcoin matter, because the point of a digital currency is to store and exchange value.