There are interesting points made, and I do hate to really pile on the criticism but I sincerely disagree with the role of SRS on reddit and the idea that it is a positive force. There are good efforts on their part, but overall the impact is negative.

The reasons behind it are criticisms of the entire internet-SJW movement itself, not just the small subsection of it. Its the very common practice of shaming, circlejerking, and silencing tactics that, admittingly, much of reddit uses to deal with criticism. There are reasons why I left reddit and a good many of those reasons have to deal with these tactics in relation to criticism.

When you are having a conversation with a person and they bring up an opinion or a viewpoint that you disagree with, then arguing against that opinion or viewpoint is fine, even healthy so long as the conversation doesn't get out of control. Intellectual activity is at its best when part of a passionate discussion about a subject that both parties are well educated on.

Now enter SRS - though in truth this applies to the majority of the internet - and the conversation changes. I present a criticism of their argument, and if the disagreement with the criticism is more than little-to-none then the response will be various internal memes and belittlement on a separate forum. I can give no response: the argument has ended. From that conversation, I will take one fact alone: SRS does not allow for dissenting opinions. This has happened numerous times, across many subreddits, with many different groups (including MRAs, r/atheists, r/gaming, etc.), and nothing of value is ever gained from it.

There is a certain amount of merit to be had in the idea that stupid opinions need not be heard, but those opinions are easily identifiable. If a person looks at me and says that all women are terrible drivers I'm going to ignore that statement because it holds no merit as an argument; even if they presented me with numerous studies that said women were worse drivers, I could easily point to an equal number of confounding variables in the studies and ultimately bring the conversation nowhere.

If a person offers arguments that have some sort of merit, then the conversation needs to continue if at all possible. If the conversation does not continue then why bother having it? It adds nothing to anybody's life, it creates a mentality where disagreement is frowned upon, and it ultimately becomes more of the same bullshit people have to deal with in real life.

I hate to pull out historical quotes like this, but as Evelyn Beatrice Hall said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." This goes beyond giving someone the ability to say something. Defending their right to say something means allowing that voice to be heard, even if you disagree. Silencing any voice because the content is offensive or even banal creates an environment that is truly hostile. This goes for all of reddit, not just SRS, because as a site, dissenting opinions are punished.

I was very much opposed to the Chik-Fil-A boycott. I thought it was banal and done entirely for show, and that it ignored larger issues facing the LGBT community. IIRC, I received almost 100 net downvotes for that comment, and not because the content was trite but because it was criticizing a move that people agreed with. It was still something I thought distracted from employment issues, hospital visitation rights, residency rights, LGBT-youth homelessness, etc.

When your community is open to discussion, it has to be open to disgreement. That's what discussion is; disagreement and resolution. Otherwise it just becomes a show. I already know about the side I agree with. Tell me why the side I agree with is wrong, so that I can fix it.

For me, the worst thing is that Reddit users, judging by their posts, have a tendency to assume that they are more intelligent, more rational, and more open-minded than the average person - when really they're just not. Watson's dual example of skepticism brings the point home, really - many redditors (especially the super-atheist) variety assert a greater level of supposed skepticism, but really they're skeptical about some things (God, Kony) and entirely driven by their own biases with regard to others (rape victimhood).

I hate it when people assert that they are open-minded, because they almost never are. And anyway, I think "open-mindedness" can't be regarded as a static quality that people possess in a more or lesser degree but a mental practice - sometimes people think in a mind-opening way, and often they keep their mind closed.