[qsort]

Yes, the point I think you're getting at is how many bad actors will use the aesthetics of rationality without the substance of it, and that's equally irrational. Like the screens of fake code from B-movie hacking scenes, they look like they mean something, but there's nothing behind the surface.

However, in such cases I think it's actually even more harmful to resort to those accusations as a first resort. Those arguments are usually wrong in at least two ways: wrong as in "incoherent, logically flawed", and wrong as in "defending reprehensible behavior".

Failing to point out the logical flaws can lead others to believe "he's unlikable but he's right", another type of posture that these people just adore acting out.

There absolutely exist genuinely racist, sexist, etc. people, and one should definitely call them out when appropriate. But those terms are very susceptible to "cry wolf" type of scenarios. If everything is the worst thing ever, then nothing is. Being more cautious with how one plays those cards allows them to be more effective when needed.

I completely agree with you about labeling, I couldn't have said it better myself.