An allegory for online censorship, or, how I learned to stop worrying about the truth so I could enjoy a hay ride:
Reader X has never liked Poster X and is offended by Poster X's diaries, which tend to be critical of Politician X, Reader X's favorite public figure.
Reader X can't develop a logical counter-argument to Poster X's assertions, but still really hates Poster X for being so critical. Reader X insists Poster X sounds like a Republican/Conservative/Regressive/Racist, even though that's not really the case, but it sounds good. And because it sounds good, other readers that don't like Poster X emulate Reader X, and make similar accusations, making it an effective way to muzzle Poster X and discourage other posters from making similar observations.
For example, Reader X may say that Poster X's portrayal of Antonin Scalia is racist, because the Supreme Court Justice appears simian. Reader X points to the broad nose and recessed chin as evidence. Reader X doesn't know much about primate anatomy (the ape's nose is not bulbous, nor do apes have recessed chins). Reader X was perhaps imagining a ground sloth, but that isn't the point. The point is, that other readers who dislike Poster X don't know anything about primate anatomy either.
The readers opposed to Poster X parrot Reader X, forming a human centipede, recycling the effective talking point until it drowns out all other opinions. Poster X, whose reputation has been stained by the calumny of readers with no knowledge of anthropology, elects to find another venue for critical dialogue. Other readers, with their own nuanced opinions, hold their tongues. The protective bubble is restored and order returns to the community.