It's strange to label anyone who disagrees with a position in this way. Sure, some disagreements are spurious, but is every single disagreement spurious? Is e

It's strange to label anyone who disagrees with a position in this way. Sure, some disagreements are spurious, but is every single disagreement spurious? Is every single person in the group incapable of rationally coming to reasonable conclusions on their own, so must be dismissed as some crazy eyed person that has a fundamental inability to understand scientific data? I don't think such treatment is productive. A) It makes members of the group feel persecuted, which tends to not change anyone's mind B) Also benefits the pro-side by giving them a demon to slay However, neither A nor B will answer any real disagreements possessed by the targeted group, and will thus not eliminate those holding to the position on a rational basis. Instead, it'll just perpetuate A and B, leading to greater polarization. It may also grow the targeted group, since at least we Americans tend to have sympathy for the underdog position that appears unfairly persecuted.