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:
In other words, prizing discourse without limitations (I tried to find a convenient analogy for said limitations and failed. Fenders? Safety belts?) will result in an environment in which people are more comfortable speaking the more social privilege they hold.
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.
There's one of his best articles:
http://lesswrong.com/lw/dr/generalizing_from_one_example/
It starts rather well - discussing an interesting study by Galton. High brow, sophisticated style, almost convincing impression of an upper class liberal person, up until he gets to the issue that for some reason actually interests him - rationalizing the views of PUA community on women. I say rationalizing because, of course, mind projection fallacy would affect opinions of PUA on women just as much as it affects opinions of women on women, but of course it is only the latter in which the fallacy is noticed.
This by the way is a great example of how cognitive fallacies are typically used here.
I'm not the least bit surprised that he would also support eugenics via sterilization. edit: or express sympathy towards it, or the like.
Yvain has told you in the past the following:
So everyone should be aware that whenever Dmytry/private_messaging claims Yvain said something, that's almost always wrong according to Yvain's own view of what Yvain said.