OnUS blogs and web forums, I became aware of a form of argumentation I would call "conviction politics" for lack of a better word. I largely sense it as the logical fallacy "it must be true because I/someone I quote display/s a strong conviction in it". But I sense that there is more to it: it is used even alongside "strong" arguments, not just to coat BS in it; and it can be effective for BS even when I'd think the snake-oil-mna-ship should be obvious to anyone.

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}