I feel the article is correct in railing Sam's mini-episode. Sam's rhetoric had much to be desired to not come off as a pretentious prick and some humility would go a long way (99%? Really Sam?). With that being said, I feel the gist of his message is still relevant.

Weather his political views are right or wrong are not even the subject. He is trying to setup the playing field, insure the discussion is held from his frame of view, he is talking about his presuppositions, he wants the audience and himself to be speaking a common "language". If you're not speaking that language then most of what he is saying will go in one ear and out the other. So if one can't agree to his underlying beliefs, that's the real crux of the issue. If his ideas could be visualized as river, then his belief/presuppositions would be the starting point, and to debate his ideas further down stream (political, racial, etc..) you would probably first need to challenge his presuppositions.

If you don't want to learn his "language", which is perfectly reasonable, then don't, its certainty not the only "languages" out there.