Having re-read it, I still can't see it as a "celebration." I would say he's acknowledging a bad habit that he can't kick. It's an admission of continuing weakness in the face of cheap pleasure, like a good critic that can't stop binge eating Spicy Cheetos.
There's guilt, but there's also: "hey guys I EAT Spicy Cheetos, and we all eat Spicy Cheetos. Let's admit it. And it feels good. Here are some funny Cheetos stories I have."
Then there are the advicing, "yeah, I know it's bad, yeah, health, yeah, nutricion, you shouldn't do it, we miss on better foods etc".
But that part is more like an obligatory guilt/save-face addition, whereas the core is "I do, you've done it, it's normal and even enjoyful".
It sure doesn't seem to me like an article written with the intention to putting an end to the practice -- more to admit it and excuse it. Eveywhere he stomps on the guy who dismissed Pratchett without having read him, he adds "but, ...", and "don't get me wrong, ...".
Hm. I think you're saying he's putting a faux-rebuke onto a happy article. Whereas I still think he's putting a happy veneer on what is ultimately a rebuke. I'm not sure how to tell which is the case, or if it even actually matters.
But hey, kudos for a cogent defense of your position. Good internetting!
