The increasing popularity of vilifying one's intellectual opponents as evil in order to avoid debating them (after all, why bother debating people who are, well, evil) will not be a new concept to readers here.
To see how the frontiers of this tactic are being pushed, one can best look at the climate debate. I want to link a spectacular example, but let me give some background:
About a year ago, a professor of cognitive science wrote a paper (Lewandowsky 2012) that tried to correlate being a climate skeptic with holding any number of other conspiracy theories (e.g. moon landings were faked). You can read the whole sad story, but in essence the survey used small sample sizes of people who may not actually have been skeptics (the survey was not actually advertised at any skeptic web sites) and compounded its own problems with bad math. In fact, the study has not actually been formally published to this day.
Anyway, a lot of folks criticized the paper. So what did the author do? Amend the paper to fix the errors? Defend his methodology? No, he wrote a second paper that used the critiques of his first paper (often selectively edited by himself) as further evidence of "conspiracist ideation." Seriously. The fact that critiques exist of his paper proves the paper! And then, for double extra recursion points, when the author published the paper online, he front-loaded the first five comments with friends who accused all subsequent commenters criticizing the second paper as conspiracists who are merely proving the point of the second paper.
Seriously, this is the group calling me "anti-science"! And no matter how much of a nutter this guy is, he got tons of mainstream ink for his initial "study." In our post-modernist world, the media uncritically laps this stuff up as real science because the results fit their narrative.