It's easier to attack than defend.

I play table top wargames. One tactic that always works, no matter the game, is to put your opponent on the defensive. People on the defensive are flustered, they make more mistakes. This is a prime debate strategy as well. It's a strategy for any contest between people. An arguing couple knows this, a child who doesn't want to clean his room knows this. Sun Tzu knew this. It's a tactic that goes way back.

All people make mistakes. They will inevitably contradict themselves at some point, because no issue beyond "2 plus 2 equals 4" is simple enough. (And there are mathematicans who will even argue such a simple arithmetic problem)

Take the case of Matt Binder, who seeks out such things that people have said in the past to mock and ridicule them, while making such blunders of his own.
No, Matt Binder probably doesn't think that consensual sex is rape. But he replied poorly to an intentionally provocative tweet, and so has made a contradictory statement.

Another tactic is to block the need to defend. Make your own position vague and fluid, and it will be more difficult for you opponent to find your inevitable mistakes.

On to satire and hyperbole. The problem with satire is that someone will inevitably take your position seriously. This happens often on social media, where people are intentionally attempting to find anything to use against an opponent. Such as what recently happend on twitter where a critic actually attempted to use a line from a movie to smear Adam Baldwin with racism.

Whether Adam Baldwin is racist or not (and I do not think he is) is irrelevant to the issue that using a line of dialogue from a movie to represent the actor's personal views is ludicrous.

Which brings me to Femitheist Divine AKA Krysta. A woman who put up some very disturbing videos on youtube once upon a time. She seems to have recanted and called those videos "satire". The problem is we have no way of knowing Krysta's mind, like Adam Baldwin. She could be recanting or dissociating from those ideas, or been sincere. I would like to point out that anyone can backpeddal and call their more hyperbolic statements "satire". People will jump through hoops to justify previous statements, and we're all vulnerable to the temptation to preserve our own Ego. MRAs, MGTOWs, Feminists, and people who think they're above such labels by eschewing them.

"How did you overcome your kwisatz haderach?" Irulan asked.
"A creature who has spent his life creating one particular representation of
his selfdom will die rather than become the antithesis of that representation,"
Scytale said.
"I do not understand," Edric ventured.
"He killed himself," the Reverend Mother growled.
-Dune Messiah

People become attached to their labels. They make them a part of their own identity. A Christian is not only someone who believes in Jesus Christ, they are someone who defines their very existence by their belief in Jesus Christ. To criticise christianity is a personal attack for such a person. To convince them that their belief is false (whether it is false or true is irrelevant. Their belief is the issue) can have a serious impact on their psyche.

So a person who identifies with a concept as part of their identity will react with strong emotions to criticism of that concept, as a personal attack. This is what leads to so much acrimony over labels instead of issues.

Is abandoning such labels a measure of prevention against attachment to the label? Is it an attempt to block criticism by denying a label and the connotations that it brings? Don't think that by refusing a label that you somehow transcend your vulnerabilities. Also, do not think that your label is your identity. Or that your lack of labels protects you from your falliability.