Whenever I read or hear a philosophy professor teaching about fallacies, I always look at their examples.

And whenever their examples all spring from a consistent worldview (e.g. they all debunk liberal ideas or conservative ideas or religious ideas or anti-religious ideas), it raises my eyebrows, because it makes me suspect that they're more interested in defending their worldview than they are in teaching logic.

But when someone presents example arguments that are inconsistent with one another, perhaps debunking an anti-religious argument first, then debunking a religious argument, then I know that they're primarily concerned with teaching, rather than indoctrinating.

I won't say which camp I think Prof. Hájek falls into with this Aeon piece, but let's just consider this suspicion of consistent-worldview examples another tool in the philosopher's toolkit of critical thinking.