I’ve seen a number of commentators (commenters, commentators? I never know what sounds right) point out that the subverters use a tactic of combining vague, unassailable truths with unspoken subtexts that you have to “know” to know, which is intellectual Kryptonite for people who are arguing in good faith from conventional frameworks. I’m not sure if that is Motte and Bailey, but whatever it is, it’s obvious once you see it. James Lindsay says, you cannot debate these people; you cannot accept any of their terms or arguments. It’s all strategic manipulation and the only response is ridicule.

The useful idiots, whom I call the “Webelieves” because of those inane yard signs, fall in line. When experiencing the cognitive dissonance of disorientation from the purported intent being at odds with the logical evaluation of the actions and arguments, they double down on herding up.