The article seems to be demolishing a strawman, based on the author's personal preconceptions. To which I can only respond with mine - I have no ego tied up in the thought of playing an 'easy' game, and it would never have occurred to me that anyone should have some sense of machismo at artificially inflating the sense of challenge via 'difficulty levels.' So in my case, the article seems to be arguing in favour of something I already have zero problem in doing - i.e. playing at the level of challenge I find most comfortable.
Additionally, there is of course a big difference between increasing the challenge of a game via scenario design or parameters, and artificially making them harder by "difficulty levels" which could mean any of a number of things. In Wolfenstein 3-D, for example (the best example I can think of at the moment that I have personal experience with), difficulty was added simply by throwing more enemy forces into the maps. In Combat Mission, difficulty is increased a bit more realistically by changing the spotting rules. I'm not even sure CM should refer to these as 'difficulty' settings as you still require the same thought processes to play the game regardless of which setting you're on and I don't know that having more relaxed spotting restrictions really eases the player's burden in any significant way. A more detailed discussion of these kinds of distinctions might be of interest.