34
My practical answer would be, of course, right wing shit, period. It wouldn't stop them but might slow their spread.
My fun/funny/unserious answer would be commission an algorithm to monitor Reddit so I don't have to that keeps track of exceedingly popular passive-aggressive and smug ways to start and end sentences and takes the top percentiles of them and makes them the shockers of the week. It would make Lemmyverse liberals a lot less redundant as a side effect, too. 
"Umm, I'm sorry, honestly, but let's be honest here. It's almost as if..."
"Wow, vitriol much?"
The "human nature" argument. Idk why this line of argument pisses me off more than others. It just feels disingenuous on too many layers maybe.
Anyways I feel like I've seen it come up a lot in the last few days. It would be funny to see if the ones arguing it can be classically trained into abandoning it
My first philosophy paper I started with an appeal to human nature and rightfully the prof did destroy that with big bold red markings. I did use the snappy start since I learned from the Economist and the big newspapers, be it Die Zeit or some Anglosphere ones that it is interesting and intellectual to do it.
It is mostly used to strengthen hegemonic ideology, it isn't scientific and many people using it have no clue about what "natural" is and neither do they have concepts about what did happen in pre-history, but they think they do - as I did, too. It is a scourge.
Lots of things are "natural" that don't have to happen and in the contemporary world don't happen anyway. People dying of preventable diseases by drinking from the same water that they bathe and wash in is natural. People having uncorrected vision or being left to die because they are unable to walk when they're injured is natural. Besides, love and compassion and group solidarity is natural but the libertarian fucks want to lean on "everyone is an insatiable glutton just like me" excuses.