I think this gets to a much more interesting question about Rationality, which, if applied properly and carefully, can loop back into the NYT's question about things like racism and sexism.

Think about Chesterton's saying about the fence:

> In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.

Rationalists are the more modern type of reformer here (and so are hackers, founders who like to disrupt things, etc., so this worldview also tends to be popular on this site). Absent a convincing argument from first principles as to why the fence should exist, they think it's clear that it shouldn't.

The sort of reformer that Chesterton calls "intelligent" I would perhaps rather call wise, in that this isn't a matter of personal cognitive capacity. (In fact, people who are more intelligent are probably better at being the "more modern" type of reformer, simply because they can more easily formulate those arguments!) They trust that someone else has put up that fence for a reason, and they aren't interested in relitigating it from first principles every time a reformer wanders by.

The truly wise reformer also knows that this only works if there's a good reason to believe the argument exists, whether or not they know the argument themselves. They have to be working in a framework where fences don't get constructed without reason in the first place. Which is a fine approach at scale: you can't scale understanding all the arguments yourself (which is why they don't want to relitigate every single one), but you can scale building a society where someone has made those arguments before building up any fences. In order to do this, they have to at least occasionally listen to the "more modern" reformers, especially when they do come back and say, look, I found out why people originally thought the fence was a good idea, and here's why I think they were wrong to do so.

Society at large tends to be more like the second type of reformer, but perhaps without that depth of wisdom. When they look at some norm in society (be it monogamy, or particular ways to phrase things, or as the article says, whether it's acceptable to eat coffee beans instead of brewing them), they tend to be unwilling to deeply question it, because they trust (rightly or wrongly) that the rest of society has converged on it for a reason. They get annoyed at children who ask "Why" all the time, and they certainly don't do so themselves.

Rationalists tend to be more like the first type of reformer. If you can't explain why the norm of monogamy is good, it's probably bad. If your argument is "It makes me feel bad," they say you should question those feelings - see the linked story at the end about "polyhacking," i.e., arguing yourself into being polyamorous because your own emotions don't make sense from first principles. (They've even invented a new term, "compersion," for a feeling which is the opposite of jealousy - you could argue that they've invented a new emotion, seeing as not enough people felt it for it to have a name already.)

Both approaches have their upsides and downsides, and I would be skeptical of either approach taken to its extreme. And it's the "more intelligent type of reformer" that controls society at large (certainly that is the position of institutions like the NYT), so there's a lot of merit in the "more modern type of reformer" pushing back on these assumptions quite aggressively.

Still, there is a little bit of a point the NYT has: there are a few ideas that society objects to because they are both wrong and rather personally harmful to segments of society. (Were they potentially right and harmful, this would be a much more difficult conversation.) If you make a first-principles argument against monogamy, and it turns out you're wrong, you're merely weird; if you make a first-principles argument against the equal dignity of the races, and it turns out you're wrong, you've probably hurt a lot of people in the process. So society at large is extraordinarily uninterested in hearing those first-principles arguments, being firmly convinced that there is a reason why that fence exists and that relitigating it won't yield a different result. From that angle, it makes sense to consider a movement that says "All our norms are up for debate" as potentially harmful (and, more importantly, potentially not actually as much in service of the cause of finding truth / doing the right thing as it claims to be).

In the other direction, this also explains why the Grey Tribe has "vague annoyance that the question of gay rights even comes up," quoting the Slate Star Codex post linked in the NYT article (which references another Chesterton work, as it happens). To the more modern type of reformer, the gender-checking gate in front of romantic partnership obviously has no point, needs to be torn down, and really the problem is all the people defending the gate because it historically existed. Which, yes, they're right about that! But the Blue Tribe knows that if you actually want gay rights to happen, you've got to play by the rules of the "more intelligent" reformer - who is wrong in this case - and affirmatively argue for taking down the fence instead of simply questioning it.