Is it me or neither the article nor the comments actually address the elephant in the room?
The social justice movement, as aptly said at the end of the article, is a profoundly rational, radically rational movement. Overcoming bias is a strong goal in SJ.
But the SJM faces a huge, cohrent mass of unconsciously biased people and most people in the SJM aren't prepared as LWer could be to address the question of bias on an intellectual level. Which means that the mass of morons they face usually feel free to ridicule their vision of bias, labelling as either naive or deluded their clarity of vision.
So, the SJM is smack in the middle of Socrate's cavern allegory. They label the shadows as shadows and people complain and react with violence (verbal or physical).
Which means that when someone in the SJM says "rationalism is bad", us radical rationlist should automatically translate it as "the moronic attitude against overcoming bias that I face and is labelled by morons as rationalism is bad".
We have a pretty stupid banking system if you can cancel a transaction after the target has had time to make a transaction back to you. Or it should be straitghforward and fee-less to cancel that second transaction as a consequence.
My experience with confronting fellow Christians with scientific evidence is for them to bog us down into discussions about the validity of science.