The only valid argument against raising the block size limit is that it may cause a block chain split — and still the highlight of the article is that we need to force through BIP-148 at the 1st of August. For those who didn’t know, BIP-148 is very likely to cause a chain split.
Other points worth mentioning — one of the reasons why a “small minority” of around 70% of the miners was blocking segwit is that accepting segwit was equivalent with forfeiting the chances of a much needed block size increase.
From my observation point the very most of the bitcoin community want both bigger blocks and segwit. 2MB blocks and segwit was also agreed upon in the Hong Kong compromise some years ago. segwit2x makes perfect sense from this perspective. Now, there are two very noisy fractions that protesting against either bigger blocks or segwit. Since those fractions are so noisy, it may be easy to conclude that everyone wants either segwit or bigger blocks but not both at once — but I believe most of the community wants both.
I am a developer and sysadmin myself, I’m very well aware of the problems associated with forcing people to upgrade software, but still I believe bigger blocks is a very trivial thing to accomplish. The only real reason to be against bigger blocks is that it may cause a chain split if too many actors are actively rejecting bigger blocks … but this seems to be a self-fulfilling prophecy as long as said actors are actively rejecting bigger blocks only due to the risk of a chain split … weird logic, indeed.