The problem isn't that they are here, or on reddit, but moderation that supports a bias against reality.

If you could go into c/averageredditor, make a good rational point, and have it be seen, then these forums would actually push them to develop ideas that make sense (or come to their senses). Reddit works the total opposite, with dissenting views hidden, rate limited, and censored so it encourages insanity in any group.

The core problem is one downvote equaling one upvote. Take the Dr. Phil thing for instance, you have 20 people in the audience that hear "trans women are women" and reflexively clap like seals. And 10 other in the planted audience who reluctantly admit that "you can't define what a woman is" is actually a good point. On reddit, Matt Walsh would be at -10 and hidden (-20 seals, +10 support), but if upvotes were say weighted 4x more he'd be a +10 (-20 seals + 10*4 support).

This scheme with upvote being a point and downvotes being 1/4 point works like a hybrid between Controversial sort and Popular sort. Popular sort is bad because you only see the hivemind, Controversial is bad because you never see the parts all sides actually agree on. Mix them together you'll still get the hivemind and can still have a forum dedicated to averageredditors, but they'll sometimes be exposed to really good counterpoints.