The whole article reeks of "fake effects were so much realer in my day". While his underlying point about ongoing desensitisation in society is valid, the focus on "pixels" as the new bad guy is merely echoing the same old complaints about new-fangled technology that we've heard since Plato.
At the time, when spectators saw red stuff, they saw blood.
No, they saw fake blood, as stated a couple sentences earlier. Imagine how much more genuine the actors' expressions would've been with REAL blood! But that isn't used because it has a few notable drawbacks, so a realistic fake is acceptable. Does it really matter what medium is used to produce the fake effect, if it's realistic?
Take explosions. People have been blown up (unconvincingly) in movies for a long time, but because setting off large pyrotechnics next to your talent is generally frowned upon by their agents, those are shot separately and composited later despite the extra acting challenge this requires. But if modern CGI allows us to send limbs flying without crippling insurance payouts, could this not be more realistic than practical effects?
But it's the movie examples TFA gives that really undercut the whole argument. Claiming that the biggest problem in Bats vs Supes was the pixels is going to induce severe rolling-eyes damage in anybody who's actually watched it.