This is more than theoretical. People on TPF who take a non-rational approach to morality really engage in this sort of thing, just on a smaller level.
It is much like what we were discussing in the other thread with respect to emotivism. For the emotivist proselytization and propaganda go hand in hand, and this is because their bedrock, emotion, is non-rational. Rational persuasion is out of the question, and therefore emotion-shaping and propaganda become the only option.
Similarly, for someone who rejects deductive moral reasoning, and who has no rational alternative to deductive reasoning, their only option to spread their moral view is some form of propaganda. They resort to insinuation, misrepresentation, strawmen, a failure to substantiate their sources and claims, an inability to face up to the one they disagree with, emotional appeals, poetic language, mystical claims, etc. There is literally no other option open to them, at least according to their paradigm. Their understanding of morality involves no rational persuasion, none of the “ethical deliberation” that I was focusing on in the previous thread. What else could they do?
So it’s not a minor problem and it’s not theoretical. If rational persuasion is not possible in the realm of morality, the goal is to propagate one’s own view, and majoritarian consensus-building is the key to such propagation, then propaganda-for-the-sake-of-consensus-power becomes the only option. This goes hand in hand with factionalism, cliques, and lots of behind-the-scenes PMs. It is basically coalition-building sans rational persuasion. It isn’t really in accord with the purpose of a philosophy forum.