He's not arguing that the FSF shouldn't push an ideology. Nor is he arguing that he doesn't have an ideology-- he states it clearly in the video regarding his understanding of the GPLv2-- "I give you the source code, you give me back your changes, and we're even."

He is making a claim that FSF tried to persuade him that the GPLv3 would satisfy Linus' ideology under the reasoning that it allows him to invalidate the tivoization clause.

Here's a quote from Linus from that video:

"Yes the GPLv3 allows you to say tivoization is not an issue for us. But it allows somebody else to take the project and say, hey, the GPLv3 without tivoization is compatible with the full GPLv3. So I will make my own fork of this and I will start doing drivers that use the full version 3. And where am I stuck then? I'm stuck saying, hey, I gave you the source code and now I can't take it back (your changes). That's completely against the whole point of the license in the first place."

Basically Linus' only requirements-- "use and give back"-- are a subset of the FSF's requirements-- "use, give back and don't lock down." Linus is accusing the FSF of claiming that the GPLv3 could do a fine job supporting Linus' requirements when in reality it doesn't protect his software from gaining additional requirements which he explicitly stated he didn't want added. And what would protect his software from that? The very license that they were persuading him to change-- GPLv2. In other words, he's accusing some unnamed representative(s) of the FSF of lying to suit their own ends.

That's rather hard to believe IMO, as I've never read or heard anything from the FSF that is purposely deceitful in this manner. Additionally, I haven't read statements from Linus that are purposely deceitful, either.

I can only surmise that a tiny amount of doctrinal difference collided with enormous egos to create a pathetic waste of time, energy, and goodwill.