That's not the point at all. I mean, did you read it?
How do you mischaracterize the specific point about the casual opportunity for foreign module metaprogamming? Module initialization is bad in a pernicious way. While you can't do operator overloading, you can clobber namespaces (which was referenced). Paired with a community repository, this is exactly the same case of what's so dangerous about npm.
He complains about Python developers grep'ing directories when he admits to looking through just as arbitrary of a directory. His complaints about random code execution during import is valid but also seen as a feature _allowing_ metaprogramming. It's just as bad as C/C++ allowing clobbering over memory.
These are features that come with trade-offs. The author is focusing _only_ on the trade-offs and how they don't exist in his favored language as a reason to hate the language. That's certainly fine for his subjective opinion but not as appropriate in a blog post where he is clearly trying to persuade others.
That's a good parallel.
> My point was he's using inexperience and/or familiarity with C/C++ as a reason to "hate" it.
I have less familiarity with C/C++ than Python and I hate it because it's not about language perspective. It's bad language design, for such a high level language. Inclusion wrapped with execution is unsafe and has an easy fix for most language interpreters. Don't allow execution during a declaration. If you want to do metaprogramming, there are other ways that don't break the paradigm (rewriting files before inclusion, chaining programs, etc).