I mean his reframing is "dangerous"? Seriously? Who is in "danger"? And in danger of what? Having a contradictory viewpoint?
Danger of breaking down rational discourse and forward progress by reframing the debate in terms that leave no room for rational discourse. He's not discussing cost/benefits or reasoned analysis; he takes those as a given and attempts to recast engineering discussion as a political left vs right, with all the emotional baggage that comes with it.
It's dangerous because ideas have the power to transform minds, and irrational ideas that appeal to emotion and preconceptions are very powerful.
You obviously disagree with his viewpoint/conclusion. Cool. So do I, somewhat, for very different reasons. Calling it "dangerous" just adds a lot of hyperbole that doesn't need to be there.
(Personally, I think I would have been happier if he'd used different words to say the same thing.)
There aren't just two 'sides', and the qualities proposed by Yegge can not be ascribed to just two sides. Different words would have made the post less insidious, but no less disingenious and intellectually stunted.