Mostly various fake explanations and ways of avoiding noticing confusion, e.g. catch-all "explanations" like "mass hallucination", "abnormal weather phenomena", "coincidence", &c. Also bad are vague categories like "pseudoscience" which are almost entirely about status.

I first came into contact with the skeptic community while looking at some of the more intelligent papers in the ufology literature. You'd get people, e.g. intelligent physicists, who were obviously just trying to make sense of the situation as best they could, getting a lot of eye-witness testimony, thinking of plausible mechanisms, &c., and then the skeptics would reply with papers along the lines of "how dare you even look at something so contemptible, let alone take it seriously, the explanation is obviously mass hallucination or weird weather phenomena or something, I'm going to ignore everything you said and instead spend many paragraphs talking about how stupid ufology is because ufology is so stupid, why are you being so stupid".

The anti-parapsychology papers weren't as bad but they were still pretty bad; I noticed that skeptics have this nasty habit of manipulating statistics to make a point, even moreso than the parapsychologists. (Which I think caused me to update too much towards thinking the parapsychology literature is actually worthwhile; you know, "if the skeptics have to manipulate the statistics so much to prove their point, then maybe the parapsychologists really are on to something".) A fair amount of the manipulation on both sides involves patently bogus claims about file drawer effects.

I also think the new atheists are pretty bad, but I think my audience would demand more justification for that claim than I'm prepared to give.

(ETA: To some extent I'd be willing to forgive skeptics if they applied their skepticism evenly; then they'd be more like skeptics in the Greek sense, which is justifiable even if not pragmatic. But as is they mostly accept whatever popular science and liberaltarian ideology tells them to accept, and in general it's almost entirely about promoting or denouncing things according to un-reflected-upon Enlightenment ideology.)