Taking three (at the most) incidents and using them to smear an entire approach to life in and outside the mind. Is there such a thing as "faux-arguments?"  Or is that simply called a "straw man?"  Click bait? (It worked on me)

Just because Rex Murphy, Christie Blatchford, Conrad Black & Margaret Wente all do it doesn't make their argument any more true.

What triggered them?  Why are they engaging in ideological political correctness?  Why are they using NP & GM as their safe spaces?  Why do they have absolutely nothing original to bring to this tiresome discussion?  Maybe its about time the four of them got off their chairs, left their computers, met on a campus and actually debated with some of the people they're smearing.  This discussion is going nowhere.

What is the end game here?