He had a small group of students who would follow him around everywhere and he would ask the class and his clique to promote and astroturf him on Reddit, Wikipedia, et al. Which is valid... I guess it's better if his students are doing it than him?
A few times on campus, he was seen coaching students who were later identified by a local antifascist group as being linked to "the Daily Stormer" -- which I have mixed feelings about; I truly believe everyone deserves to have tools for better thinking, but you're right to suspect Boghossian as possibly having agendas.
In a direct response to your last question, he did get in some hot water for bad faith academic publishing that produced questionable benefits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair
I'll say that people criticizing RMS doesn't make the libre software movement bad, and it doesn't invalidate his accomplishments.
He was fun back then, but I think a little bit of fame has gotten to his head. I think he wants to get people to really think about their beliefs, why they have them, and if it's reasonable to have them, but his methods are indistinguishable from bad faith trolls that are "just asking questions" (aka, JAQing off).
Another passage that rings a bell:
> Today the method has a life of its own, driven by a community of people interested in discussing difficult topics, seeking truth and reflecting on the methods we use to arrive at our deep convictions.
Sounds like basically the entirety of philosophy
> Sounds like basically the entirety of philosophy
That's the opposite of the experience I've observed.
The starting point for a lot of philosophy students is learning the teachings of Plato and Socrates, among which the most famous is likely "I know that I know nothing"
The philosophical prototype of Socrates also gives license to be a gad-fly, piss people off for a good cause, etc. Instead of offering to pay a modest fine when he was found guilty of corrupting the youth, Socrates was so certain of his rectitude he told the court he should instead be awarded free meals for life like the Olympic champions. Now there's someone with chutzpah.
In any case, I think this is the most important kind of activism their is and nobody needs to be part of their original community to do it or do it for the same reasons.
If you see religion as an overall bad influence - more specifically, as "the opposite of understanding", then both are (were) aligned.
> Street Epistemology started life as a method to discuss religious belief in the 2013 book A Manual for Creating Atheists.
Is it just me, or is there (or was there) an agenda here that’s in conflict with its claims about creating understanding? With apologies for the pun, were they “good faith” conversations?