Yegge isn't arguing for the abandonment of taste and rigour in a race to incorporate every kitchen appliance into the language. He's arguing that languages and communities that take a prescriptive (someone said "paternalistic") stance end up marginalizing themselves by their own rigidity, and that the antidote for this -- as well as the passageway toward wider adoption -- is to actively listen to and court new users. I couldn't agree more.
(Side note, this is why I like Common Lisp. Its loosey-goosey flexibility that always assumes the programmer knows best leads to an awesome fluidity that finds its around any obstacle. CL is unpopular, but not because of its pluralism. Qua language it has a deep respect for the user.)
There's another point here. Whether you're a fan of Steve Yegge or not (I didn't use to be, but after nodding with everything he said here I am now), he has a proven ability to mobilize a significant body of programmer opinion. To ignore what this guy says about the marketing of programming languages itself already displays a foolish disregard for the market.
I'm not saying this is a good thing, but you seem to contradict yourself by liking CL at the same time you agree with Steve Yegge.
By historical accident. I'm talking about language design. Yegge says much the same thing about CL in the OP, by the way.
It's fine for bashing out 3-4 file programs. It's a decently high-entropy language.
It's a bloody lousy hacking language because of the prescriptiveness.
I'd rather use Common Lisp, and I do, for personal stuff.