Arthur Chu was discussed here previously for his success with Jeopardy using careful scholarship to develop strategies that he knew had worked in the past for other people.

In the comments section here he makes a much more extreme case against LessWrong's policy of not censoring ideas than Apophemi did a while back. Frankly he scares me*. But on a more concrete note, he makes a number of claims I find disturbing:

1) Certain ideas/world-views (he targets Reaction and scientific racism) are evil and therefore must be opposed at all costs even if it means using dishonest arguments to defeat them.

2) The forces that oppose social justice (capitalism, systematic oppression) don't play nice, so in order to overcome those forces it is necessary to get your hands dirty as well.

3) Sitting around considering arguments that are evil (he really hates scientific racism) legitimizes them giving them power.

4) Carefully considering arguments accomplishes nothing in contrast to what social justice movement is doing which at least is making progress. Hence considering arguments is contrary to the idea of rationality as winning. (This seems extreme, I hope I am misreading him)

5) Under consequentialism, if intellectual dishonesty and rhetoric (the dark arts) are capable of advancing the causes of people that are good and opposing the forces of evil, then intellectual dishonesty and rhetoric are good.

There is some redundancy there but whatever.

*I mean this literally, I am actually physically frightened.