Most of his arguments come from flawed premises* and are riddled with logical fallacies, especially straw man, no true Scotsman, hasty generalization, and appeal to authority. But the essence of his argument essentially comes down to:

  (1) "There are geeks that are anti-intellectual"
  (a premise I reject)

  (2) "The geeks that are anti-intellectual are an increasing larger subset of geekdom"
  (ironically (given that he advocates for facts), an opinion given without facts)

  (3) "Anti-intellectual geekdom is bad"
  (something I would concur with if it weren't a contradiction in terms)

*(e.g., geeks love knowledge, we go to parties and talk about up and down quarks, politics, theory of the mind, nature of reality, Aristotle vs Plato, metaphysics, and all sorts of philosophically rooted stuff)