Oh, where to start…
From the “for example” sentence to the end of the next paragraph, there are just sentences with insinuations and little content. Should one dissect everyone of them?
Let’s start with the first one. A has written positively about the idea of X, which is often a code word for pseudo-scientific Y and/or Z.
So? Not always, then? Has A written positively about Y or Z?
(spoiler: yes, Z, I doubt he has about Y)
Y is a bad word which is constantly losing value due to overuse, but Z is a very bad word. Except when you remember that A is one of those guys who will argue something based on literal meanings, rather than added meanings and Z can actually mean something positive, if you define it rather strictly. Reading A, I suspect he would do so. I can understand how that can be infuriating.

So what did that sentence convey? Someone has written positively about something, which someone else might have used to mean something else which in some cases is very bad but not in others.
And so on.

What are you trying to say here? Just like the article you linked about “human biodiversity”, which contains little actual information but lots of insinuations, what’s the point? Is Scott Alexander a bad person or do you just want leave the impression that he is?