I believe there was most likely one specific thing that offended the author
Why?
What might it have been?
Why wouldn't the author say what it was, if there was such a thing?
What might it have been?
Why wouldn't the author say what it was, if there was such a thing?
Read the "tl;dr" part at the end of the article. (Someone used the word "eugenics", and the author was trigegred by this word.)
Why [do you believe there was most likely one specific thing that offended the author]?
The contrast between the widely general text of the article, so that I had problem finding out "what exactly is this person trying to say?", and the very specific "tl;dr" at the end, which I really would have p...
A long blog post explains why the author, a feminist, is not comfortable with the rationalist community despite thinking it is "super cool and interesting". It's directed specifically at Yvain, but it's probably general enough to be of some interest here.
http://apophemi.wordpress.com/2014/01/04/why-im-not-on-the-rationalist-masterlist/
I'm not sure if I can summarize this fairly but the main thrust seems to be that we are overly willing to entertain offensive/taboo/hurtful ideas and this drives off many types of people. Here's a quote:
The author perceives a link between LW type open discourse and danger to minority groups. I'm not sure whether that's true or not. Take race. Many LWers are willing to entertain ideas about the existence and possible importance of average group differences in psychological traits. So, maybe LWers are racists. But they're racists who continually obsess over optimizing their philanthropic contributions to African charities. So, maybe not racists in a dangerous way?
An overly rosy view, perhaps, and I don't want to deny the reality of the blogger's experience. Clearly, the person is intelligent and attracted to some aspects of LW discourse while turned off by other aspects.