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?”
Yeah no/mindpalace/this rules/it’s lit
“Bot” when encountering cognitive dissonance.
Putin
Mostly because it would be funny
Other funny options: “Constitution, founding fathers, individual rights, liberty, ‘he’, just war”
You would only encourage the further use of le Putler
“market forces” or just “market”
“Fiscal” would cover lots of chuddery and libshit.
Absolutely. Those “living beyond their means” people would be hit by it, too.
Any time somebody talks about politics through the lens of ‘tribalism’ or boiling ideology down to a ‘my team their team’ situation.
God I fucking hate the muh “tribalism” bit. It’s almost as exhausting as American conservatives saying
“RePubliC noT dEmoCraCy”
It’s peak brainworms
Surely there is a middle ground where the Adults In The Room that Make The Hard Decisions can Get Shit Done by doing only half of the atrocities for a marginally lower increased rate of profit.
My work email address. Everytime someone composes an email to me they’d have to decide “is this question worth the mild electrical shock or could I just Google this?” and I’d honestly take a pay cut to make this happen.
slurs
”Enshittification”
The phenomenon it describes is real, but we need a word to describe it that isn’t reddit as fuck.
”Play stupid games, win stupid prizes”
The stupidest smuggest Reddity game of all gets the prize it deserves.
‘whataboutism’
whataboutism 
Amber
Amber.
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
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.
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.
If you respond to what you want the other person to have said instead of what they actually said, thats a zappin
I can’t help myself and not lick it when I have a 9 volt battery at hand, so I’d probably end up just zapping myself out of boredom
Tankie
“i’m into electroplay”
Hard r
