Snarky, yes. Philosophical, not so much. Most of his essay is filled with vituperative ad hominem attacks rather than rational arguments against the ideas in question. That in turn tells me all I need to know about the cogency of his arguments.
Sorry, but I've found in the past that this type of argument conveys the sense of "I didn't want to take the time to read the whole thing." It's a fallcy, actually, to correlate the tone of a piece with the validity of its arguments.