There's nothing new about these rhetorical tricks, they've been in use since Christ was a corporal: exaggerating your opponent's position so you can attack it with impunity, even barbarity; red herring, straw men, cherry picking, broad brush, reframing, muddying the waters, changing the subject.

And of course, if you object to the tactic, they re-cast it as an attack on their message, even if that wasn't even what you were discussing. But what I was trying to point out is that these tactics eventually backfire, because they do not intimidate, they annoy, and eventually all the propagandist's pronouncements are expected, then predictable, and from there is only a short step to trivial.

The truly effective propagandists, (and most of those work in advertising and public relations, not politics), are non-confrontational, oblique, subtle. The target doesn't even know he's being shot at, he accepts the message because it seems reasonable, moderate, civilized.
The target is not antagonized, or shamed into accepting the message, he's led to believe he's arrived at it on his own.