Careful! The authors at that site both have a strong background in satire. It is quite possible that S.H.A.M.E. is not meant to be taken seriously. Combine this with the over the top language, and the numerous logical errors, and it is really hard to escape that conclusion.
Here are a couple examples of the logic errors. If a person gives speeches for money, and is hired by group X to give a speech, S.H.A.M.E. takes this to mean that the person is a shill for X. Another good example is in the profile of Steven D. Levitt, where they tag him as a union buster, based on the fact that he wrote a paper that proved statistically that some teachers in Chicago were cheating on standardized test. In S.H.A.M.E. logic this means that Levitt is a union buster, because someone might use that information as part of an argument against the teacher's union.
Regardless of whether the site is satire and so the errors are intentional, or the site is serious and the authors don't know how to reason, it seems rather silly to decide to forego an author you found quite interesting based on that site.
Here are a couple examples of the logic errors. If a person gives speeches for money, and is hired by group X to give a speech, S.H.A.M.E. takes this to mean that the person is a shill for X. Another good example is in the profile of Steven D. Levitt, where they tag him as a union buster, based on the fact that he wrote a paper that proved statistically that some teachers in Chicago were cheating on standardized test. In S.H.A.M.E. logic this means that Levitt is a union buster, because someone might use that information as part of an argument against the teacher's union.
Regardless of whether the site is satire and so the errors are intentional, or the site is serious and the authors don't know how to reason, it seems rather silly to decide to forego an author you found quite interesting based on that site.