*NOTE: I’m cutting you some slack on this because you’re discussing with me, and I personally don’t mind this too much. But do not act like this against other users of this community, OK?

Ah now the authority is speaking. As if it was me who started to spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) about Esperanto. By just welcoming the blessed opinions of JBR.

associating them with anti-vaxxers (or Nazi, or puppy killers etc.) out of nowhere.

It's not out of nowhere, people who use the same tactics in argumentation are grouped together. And even when you don't like it. Then don't like the opinion I have about your argumentation style. As you already noted about my style of argumentation.

assuming the intentions of other people. You’re claiming what you cannot reliably know.

When an argument goes in a certain direction, then there is little left of what the person really is intending. Experience counts more than uncertainty.

I’d also like to encourage you [and everyone else in this comm] to be extremely careful with arguments relying on “who” said something or their “credibility”, as in your first paragraph. It’s simply more conductive to analyse what is said than who is said it.

In general I would agree with you there. But in the end let's face it, the arguments of an architect regarding the construction of buildings weighs more than the arguments of Joe the neighbour regarding house building. In the end you only have logic and "argumentation style" to prove or disprove what you are saying. This in turn means that arguments are forced to follow a certain direction inevitably because of "logic", which leads to the same conclusions, which leads to echo chambers of people who follow these conclusions.

If for example you approach road design by seeing that all the cars are blocking them, so you by the force of logic you widen the road, the problem still exist, you widen the road more. Based on the experience of people who did research into road construction, infrastructure building you would have known that using trains, bike lanes, smaller roads and more clever design of cities would really solve the problem. Sheer basic logic does not solve shit.

And so it is in attempting with disproving or proving JBR.

adopting a defensive tone and excessive snark.*

Cute, I'm only in normal conditions and this is already considered "excessive snark". Adopting a defensive tone is what I did, because I think you are spreading FUD about Esperanto.

TL;DR: I still call your claim that Esperanto is poorly designed "nonsense".