The problem with the reactionaries getting rebuttals in the form of "that's a socially horrible thing to say and you're a horrible person, fuck you" is that viewpoints that seem supported by science but are socially shunned as unthinkable are catnip here. A rebuttal that shows that actually the argument isn't very solid, or the science isn't being interpreted right, or that there are large chunks of important stuff being left out of the argument would have a lot more staying power, while just bringing on the social shaming sends the signal that the reactionaries might be on to something since it seems to be hard to come up with a rebuttal that works on the same level as their arguments.