But, there’s the “smooth talking con” problem as well. Look at many documentaries: they’re designed this way. It starts with a few “what ifs”. If you are not thinking critically about the thought experiment being presented, you could find yourself inadvertently agreeing with a position that you otherwise would reject.
But if you take a moment and “call it as you see it” it can re-engage the inner skeptic which can help prevent being led.
I know you’re speaking more generally about the Coke vs Pepsi fights across the internet but I think there can be value in calling things as you see them. It took me a long time to come to this position as I’m generally an “all labels are inherently bad” person. But when I noticed that same position used by those of the divergent political persuasion than me, I came to realize the danger in ignoring the usefulness of language.
Even if done with malicious intent, if the community did not decide upon “these words are not welcome here”, which is often the case in unregulated forums, it’s possible to take a launched battle word and turn it into a useful vehicle to better express one’s own position.
Example: I am a PC, SJW snowflake, low energy libtard globalist beta cuck. I blue pill as often as I can because it’s [CURRENT YEAR]. My participation trophies are numerous.
Does this describe me ? No. Yet it can. So when these are launched my way, I take that and express in which ways I am similar and in which ways I differ from their word choices and I do frequently.