There is some difference between group ideas and group norms, although sometimes these two overlap. There is also a difference between challenging group ideas, and breaking group norms.
An example of a group idea: "It is reasonable to give million dollars to an organization that will freeze your head when you die, because someone might scan your brain and make a machine simulation of you, and it will be really you."
An example of a group norm: "We should refrain from political examples, personal attacks, irrational arguments, etc."
An example of challenging a group idea: "I think the machine simulation is not really you. Even if it is 'alive', it is a new life form; and your old self is dead."
An example of breaking group norms: "This is so stupid!!! I guess you have also voted for [political party]!"
Sometimes these two things can be confused. For example it can be a group norm to never challenge group ideas (or to limit challenging them to ways that have no chance to succeed). This should not happen. On the other hand, it is also very frequent to obviously break group norms and then complain about group's intolerance to challenging its ideas -- this is a typical pattern for many internet trolls, and the community should be able to recognize it.
An example: "Cryonics does not work, f*** you!" "Downvoted for swearing." "You just downvote me because I disagree with you, f*** you!"
Also sometimes the group's norms are as problematic as its ideas; e.g. KKK, Nazis.
But usually the norms are not too bad, it's just the ideas that are ridiculous (moderate religion in a nutshell). So it definitely makes sense to make a distinction for practical purposes.
Like any educated denizen of the 21st century, you may have heard of World War II. You may remember that Hitler and the Nazis planned to carry forward a romanticized process of evolution, to breed a new master race, supermen, stronger and smarter than anything that had existed before.
Actually this is a common misconception. Hitler believed that the Aryan superman had previously existed—the Nordic stereotype, the blond blue-eyed beast of prey—but had been polluted by mingling with impure races. There had been a racial Fall from Grace.
It says something about the degree to which the concept of progress permeates Western civilization, that the one is told about Nazi eugenics and hears "They tried to breed a superhuman." You, dear reader—if you failed hard enough to endorse coercive eugenics, you would try to create a superhuman. Because you locate your ideals in your future, not in your past. Because you are creative. The thought of breeding back to some Nordic archetype from a thousand years earlier would not even occur to you as a possibility—what, just the Vikings? That's all? If you failed hard enough to kill, you would damn well try to reach heights never before reached, or what a waste it would all be, eh? Well, that's one reason you're not a Nazi, dear reader.
It says something about how difficult it is for the relatively healthy to envision themselves in the shoes of the relatively sick, that we are told of the Nazis, and distort the tale to make them defective transhumanists.
It's the Communists who were the defective transhumanists. "New Soviet Man" and all that. The Nazis were quite definitely the bioconservatives of the tale.