I'm not convinced it's positive, though I definitely understand the impulse. (And specifically wanting to take down LessWrong, which has turned very weird and navel gaze-y).

But it's a lot like the vitriol I see towards effective altruism. There's a good idea there (i.e. wanting to train oneself to think rationally, or wanting to do charity in a way that achieves the most good for the amount of money given). It's a bit sad to me that because the representatives of these ideas are flawed (rationality, LessWrong, Eliezer), or because they've been used as cover for shitty behavior (effective altruism, Sam Bankman-Fried) that the consensus becomes "there's nothing good here and it's all bullshit".

This pattern of throwing out the baby with the bathwater seems absolutely pervasive in modern discourse, you can see variations of it in people's thinking on vaccines, racism, democracy, journalism, freedom of speech, and global warming, to think of just a few examples.

Sorry, this became kind of a rant, but I really wish our internet discourse could do a better job of filtering babies from bathwater than it currently does.

I think rationalism as an idea is pretty good, and I found the article funny. It's mostly a parody of a type of rationalism that does not exist though, i.e. idealized economic agents, not the type of rationalism that people actually want, where you achieve whatever your existing goals are and minimize the chance of catastrophic error/failure.