A very broad TLDR would be that the article takes an article with the parent commentator's TLDR, and refutes it while providing insights into why the the original author might have written it in the first place.
I would claim it is: My only reason to make it was to prevent people from going away with that TL;DR. I don't want to make one myself, because why not just click on the link and read the article? The comment is not a summary of that article at all, that is all.
This is a complex subject and details matter very much. I don't think it is healthy to have people get only a caricature of the whole thing. I also recommend reading at least some of the many comments, and even to follow some of the links provided there. For example, I found this one in the comments and I've just reached the comment section: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-ou...
> TL;DR. I don't want to make one myself, because why not just click on the link and read the article?
There's an essentially infinite amount of information out there on the internet, and people have a finite amount of free time; thus, many of us try to glean the thesis of an article before committing an hour to reading it -- particularly slow readers and non-native English speakers.
Especially in articles like this one, with a vague headline, no pull quotes, section titles that are too symbolic to actually describe the sections they head, and a break from the convention of using the opening paragraphs to provide a summary of what's to come, a TLDR comment is greatly appreciated to give a potential reader at least some clue what it's about.
TLDR: You oppose TLDR comments because you feel they keep people from reading the full article, but in cases like this, the lack of one is doing so.
Instead of looking for an TL;DR, this time I suggest actually reading it. I would say it's well worth it.