There is a pattern in online argument that is worth exploring and explaining.

Many of my critics falsely accuse me of calling them or their idols terrible names like “Nazi” or “racist.”

They have no evidence but it’s not the point.

They’re poisoning the well on purpose.

By falsely claiming that their critics have made ridiculous attacks, they aim to make their supporters dismiss any criticism without consideration.

Poisoning the well against any critical source convinces supporters to blind and deafen themselves to any outside evidence.

This is especially common among reactionary and contrarian groups, who build an identity not around principles, but around being unpopular.

It is a defense mechanism, like Aesop’s sour grapes, to protect a self esteem without examining whether the unpopularity is justified.

It makes it easier to deceive followers is anyone who points out the deception is automatically and reflexively dismissed as an enemy.

Whether it’s flat earthers, Q-Anon, or just a podcast, building walls against any outside sources protects the leaders from being exposed.

This also relates to why these groups create fantastical conspiracy theories to explain any opposition or criticism.

“They’re not calling flat earth kooky because it is, they’re trying to suppress the truth.”

When every criticism is defined as a lie, they are immune to truth.

Another sign is looking at which side the source is on to determine whether the claim is true or false, independent of the claim.

Reactionaries will deny that the sky is blue if someone from the “enemy” says so. They will encourage followers to do so as well to show loyalty.

Look around at the discussions you see on social media and you will see these patterns repeat.

When you see them, describe clearly and publicly what is happening so that others can also see.

Be good to each other, be kind, but be persistent.