I confess to finding disparate groups equally tiresome lol.
Listening to Dawkins drone on about how religion is a brain disorder is as annoying to me as (since it was an example given earlier) as people who oppose vaccinations with no empirical evidence. I would add that holding to either position can also definitely mean developing ideas which are harmful to other people.
I lean far to the left politically/socially, but sometimes I find my fellow liberal/progressives/whatever to have nearly as poor arguments as plenty of conservative ideologues I know, even if I agree with their actual positions.
In the case of anti-vaxxers, sticking your kids around someone immuno-compromised for instance, based on no real evidence - irresponsible for sure. In the case of "New Atheists", it can be a sort of support of the status quo..including imperialism for example, like a new, science-based White Man's Burden. Maybe some people remember when Hitchens supported the Iraq war, there are a lot of arguments coming from this corner of thought that amount to "civilizing" those with what they consider primitive beliefs - a position with some abysmal real-world precedents.
Seriously, we listen to anyone long enough, including ourselves, and I think it's easy to get exasperated.
Again though, I generally like DGT, I like some things that Sam Harris writes, i'm just pretty convinced the speak outside their area of expertise pretty regularly...they are public intellectuals, who publish all kinds of opinions which are not in any sense "science" but when another intellectual (say Thomas Nagel) says something they don't like, they go off about how unscientific it is. As if Sam Harris' arguments about racial profiling are somehow based on "science", rather than his subjective worldview.
"it must be coming from the mouthy mastermind of raunchy rapper, Johnny Dangerous”