Firstly there's the obvious observation that Y Combinator companies very rarely use lisp, but there's also really a lack of any solid evidence of any kind anywhere that language choice has such a big impact.
I am a fan of exploring languages and making a good choice for the problem at hand and always remaining open-minded but I can't stand the religious flame war side of it and I really do not think that article helps, at all.
To me languages are always a trade-off between abstraction and control, to which each problem has an appropriate range of languages to apply.
I also think the concept doesn't apply here as go is certainly less powerful and has fewer abstractions than Haskell (by design) - so if anything it is the 'blub' language* according to the article here (my point being not to criticise go but rather to point out how silly the beating the averages concept is).
I don't think his original piece was arrogant, I think this is something of an overreaction and a problem with assessing any language - adherents meeting criticism with 'you just have to use it more' can use that excuse indefinitely. Better to address individual points.
* I love go and contributed to the core compiler back in 2011/12 so this isn't an attack on it.