> On the other hand, it has the potential for readers to mistake their drivel for substantive discourse. The thing is, not engaging with them - in non-moderate

> On the other hand, it has the potential for readers to mistake their drivel for substantive discourse. The thing is, not engaging with them - in non-moderated communities - also has the potential for readers to mistake their drivel for substantive discourse, both by way of familiarizing them with it - mere exposure effect - and by making it appear like their assertions are not being challenged because they cannot be challenged. That's why the engagement really needs to happen on two fronts: both on their own level - assertions met with demands for proof, unrelated or misunderstood papers pointed out as such, counter-assertions backed with proof - and on a meta level. If you only do the former you will run afoul of Brandolini's bullshit asymmetry principle, while letting them choose the field of engagement: there is a literally infinite number of bullshit claims they are able to make - be that "trans people are just incels, really" or "transsexualism [sic] is a sexual addiction, which is why epileptics never transition" - and attempting to disprove them will perforce require much more effort than it takes them to shit them out. Helping them can be very satisfying, also. I still fondly remember that time when I decided to engage with a Nazi who was denying the existence of the gas chambers, asking them for proof, only to receive a link to a report, hosted on Nikzor, which went about debunking their own claim.