That is good article. It made some points that I hadn't really thought of, but I think it was written before the BCH fork, so most of those apply to BCH, too. I'm left with the question, without Segwit2x, what does BTC offer that BCH doesn't? The only thing I can think of is wider adoption.
Then again, as a financial product, maybe its resistance to block chain economic changes could even be seen as a feature. BTC has survived 8 years of widespread predictions of its demise, so I wouldn't want to bet the bank against it.
I think the argument coming from the BTC camp is that just increasing the the blocksize leads us down the path of centralization since the bigger the blocks get the bigger the mining operation has to be to handle the network, which means organizations with deep pockets, which means all we have in the end is Visa or something similar to what we have already. Which defeats the purpose of Bitcoin to begin with right?