That seems an unfair assessment of many skeptics. Of course, once you are grouped you suffer from characterizations of that group, but that's not my view of what to be a skeptic is. To me, it means having views that reflect the weight of current evidence. Not to say all proclaimed skeptics meet that measure, but it seems unjust to group those that do with those that don't. Has the term 'skeptic' been sullied?
I had a subscription to the Skeptical Inquirer for about a year. I think that was before Reddit, or any skeptic forums of note. At the time it seemed pretty tame, if not an angle for popular science. I suppose this was also before the vaccine frauds. Every scientist is a skeptic. But IMHO popularizing science wins a lot more hearts and minds than debunking. Most people don't believe in things strongly due to evidence alone. Perhaps /r/skeptic has unfairly biased you against some mellow folk that congregate elsewhere?
And I own two Michael Shermer books. My mother has a Ph.D in microbiology. Her dad is a Ph.D biochemist and the chief scientist for a fortune 500 biomedical company. I consider myself "skeptical." But for the past 10 years I've been encountering "skeptics" that are nothing more than angry assholes who want so much to believe in a religion but their own rationality prevents them so they cling to "skepticism" as if it were papal doctrine. The only people who use the title "skeptic" are those who want to pick a fight. Enough of them have threatened bodily harm against those I love that I am entitled to my bias. "Skeptics" never politely disagree: they tell you why you're a fuckhead for not thinking like they do.