I enjoyed the first half. Near the end, when he started talking about LessWrong (he had done it earlier, but I didn't know "LW" was an acronym) it became clear he was misrepresenting himself as blue and was in fact grey: a lot of people who are grey assume they are related to red, and so when you go to find grey you pick apart red, but that viewpoint also shares a lot with blue, which is why his earlier attempt to fix the political skew in the user surveys, a strategy that only seemed to try to recount reds, failed to discover what I would personally assume, which is that the website has very few actual blues.

He also started railing on specific behaviors in the second half, behaviors he was doing himself in the article, something he thankfully noticed and commented on, but then did not defend, other than to use the same excuses he said were flawed earlier: failing to realize the audience of people who read this website are also mostly grey; the only people reading his articles who are blue are people who got linked to the blog for the first time, or (as in my case), got tricked by a compelling hook. (I read this article due to the comment here by someone about "that's not how dark matter worked", and then stayed as I was excited to read an article that sounded sort of grey but was supposedly written by a blue.)

Maybe humorously, I believe the persistent issues he seems to have with people "misinterpreting" him are actually coming from this same source: people who are blue occasionally read his comments for various reasons, realize he's grey, and then complain about various things he's saying by using words like "feminist" as short-hand for blue. In practice, all of my friends who are grey run into the same issues with the things that they say, and honestly it has been harder and harder for me to keep arguing with them as opposed to just giving up and reinforcing my bubble (which I really don't want to do: I even have tried to notice the dumb things I do that turn off reds and have attempted to fix those).

The only real "point" made in the later part of the article is to try to claim red and blue are equivalently dumb (a very grey thing to do ;P) by drawing an analogy from party dynamics to religious persecution. However, despite claiming earlier that he understood that absolute effect is not a good proxy for whether something is a problem or not (when he said he understood racism was worse than partyism), he somehow managed to entirely ignore that he found in his own terminology an objective moral advantage for blue vs. red: that blue only hated red, while red (by his own admittance one paragraph earlier) was causing collateral damage to people who weren't even in the silly color battle.

So yeah: while I am concerned that this article's terminology actually will reinforce a core problem rather than helping in any way (I didn't have a good way to talk about grey before other than "LessWrongers", which I realize is as useless as calling reds "white men"), I am having some fun using these words, and am finding it useful to try to divorce my mental categorizations of people from random incorrect labels, and thereby recommend others read at least the first half. Whether you read the second half or not is less interesting unless you need a concrete example of the problem and love the idea of seeing situations like this "go meta". It is probably the case that jqm's strategy was actually the correct one here, and I doubt shortening the post (I actually liked its verbosity) would fix the internal issues.