Hoping this question doesn’t attract the sort of folks the internet has become notorious for hosting. That said, as a follow up, I’d like to know what Historians think of this phenomenon of academic criticism being appropriated by anti-intellectuals to promote their ideological leanings. How responsible, if at all, is academia for its critical methods being propagated onto such nefarious movements? In law, when a statute or ruling becomes a breeding ground for actions that contravene public policy, despite initial good intentions, the legal system has the opportunity to strike down the law for unconstitutionality or overrule the ruling. Does a similar apparatus exist within critical discourse? Has critique run out of steam, so to speak?
While more can always be said, a great overview of the history and practice of denialism from u/commiespaceinvader is available here. Without wanting to prejudice the rest of your questions, they seem to be predicated upon an assumption that academic terminology/concepts are being used accurately (or in good faith) by denialists, which tends to be far from the case. They will use whatever rhetorical tools that seem to be available to them to dress up their arguments, which will inevitably shift over time anyway. Limiting productive academic discourse because it is sometimes appropriated and misused would be seem to be a flawed and self-defeating response to this process.