I agree with the content, but I think the title vastly overstates things. A better title would be "Debating the Superiority of Languages Don't Matter".
There are many cases were language does matter. To take the article's analogy to its limits, a stone carver probably shouldn't try to make his living casting chess pieces from metal. Although he may well become a better carver by casting some pieces for fun. Likewise, the new piece-maker that was just hired at the metal foundry probably shouldn't make wooden chess pieces, even though she took wood shop in high school and it was really fun.
Language does matter (a lot) when you are a professional trying to make a living. For fun and when fighting over imaginary internet points, not so much.
The comments to this article miss the point. They argue that language does matter, and that choosing the right one makes a big difference. This article never disagrees. On a case-by-case basis you do need to pick the tool that works the best, but in a larger sense, languages don't matter - they're a means to an end, and not an end of themselves. The meaning of the analogy of the craftsmen should really be apparent, but it seems not to be - if two tools are both suited to completing a job, and the quality is comparable in the end, then what does it matter what tools were used in creating it? Perhaps some tools would be lower cost, perhaps faster to create in, perhaps more accessible, and these all need to be taken into consideration. The author does not argue otherwise. What he's arguing is that people who only know, and only care to know, one programming language limit themselves drastically because of their devotion to one tool, when there might be many ways to approach a problem. There is no "best" tool, only a best tool for a specific purpose, and even then the best must be qualified with "under these conditions."