The author states:

> every single one of my blog posts argues a point. I never publish a post that just gives some scattered thoughts on a topic, or a post that only says “yes, I agree with this other article”.

What’s wrong with posting about something interesting about the world you have discovered without arguing any point? The author seems to argue that polemics are the only valid form of writing. Even for a polemicist that seems a bit self aggrandizing.

I read that passage a little differently. He explicitly says other kinds of blogging are fine; the "argue a point" rule seems more like a constraint he imposes on himself because it forces him to investigate the subject more deeply