It's a call to the people in the room at a Skeptics conference to be scientific and skeptical and not selectively so. I'm writing this comment based on my general experience in the community, which I was pretty into at that time.

Until around 2010, the Skeptics community, which kind of centered around several conferences and meetups with the same recurring "big names". It was getting a libertarian bent, with lots of the big names at these conferences being very scientific and thorough in debunking of things like homeopathy and religion, but dismissive of soft-science advances, and often dismissive of things like sexual harassment (even at community events) and mistreatment of minorities (often this would be chalked up to just being the fault of religion). You often couldn't always put your finger on it, but it seemed like the arguments for small government, private healthcare, no gun control didn't seem as.. scientific. And often there was a few people in the crowd who were experts in the topic of discussion looking around the room and wondering why seemingly everyone else was nodding in agreement. Those people slowly found each other and still attended meetups and enjoyed some speakers but were skeptical of others.

Around 2010 there was a noticeable divide in the group. Group A were people that wanted to apply skepticism broadly within the community and assert that more social topics ought not to be just status quo forever. A few were angry, but mostly it was people that didn't think the community was inwardly skeptical enough, or just got bored of making fun of chiropracters. Group B were people that looked up to the big names without much critical thought and were happy to be skeptical of religion and often had good discussion but just as often avoided good discussion if it was uncomfortable to the group or to the big names. Also people that didn't really engage and probably didn't notice anything change. The groups started to separate, in person and online, and group A generally gathered around known, but not "big name" bloggers, authors and youtubers. I remember being in that group and realizing things were worse than I thought, once you were in a room of like-minded people, there were a lot of open secrets shared about who was a creep and who was a creep apologist. Most of the stories were about patterns of behavior.

Then in 2011 elevatorgate and Richard Dawkins tonedeaf reply happened.[1] This was a big wedge and a small but still surprising number in group B became really nasty to the first group. Since then group A was not really a group loosely knit, with some focused on one issue or another, but deliberately not really having much leadership. Group B shed some people into A or away altogether as a minority of people in Group B doubled down on being assholes. But still group B had a lot of people who weren't engaged enough to see the drama or piece together that skepticism wasn't always evenly applied. This speech is for those people. Online it was shared heavily by people that had already left and felt resonance with it.

Funny enough, group B kind of imploded starting around 2016. A few big names were metoo'd, and it turns out some skeptics including big names were happy to be less than skeptical of alt-right adjacent views. I think Skepticism lost steam as people found more draw to align on and discuss political issues, especially in America. Covid happened and conferences and meetups stopped. Now the conferences and meetups are back and although a lot have moved on, it looks like those are mostly Group A people and let's say ex-group B people.

[1]https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Elevatorgate