"Minimizing the damage" does not mean that the "offending" messages need to, or even should, be altered, i.e.: changing one set of words for another set of arbitrary words, or censoring the message in toto. Because when that starts happening, it is the silencing of a perfectly valid opinion for another equally valid opinion. Opinions need not be based in fact, and in many cases opinions clearly are not based on facts. That doesn't mean that they are invalid opinions, just not soundly reasoned opinions.

So what does the community do to counteract these opinions? Respond to them vigorously using facts to illuminate the erroneous assertions. Do this as often as is necessary. Do not resort to ad hominem attacks against the authors of the unsound arguments. Ad hominem attacks will destroy any credibility that author of the rebuttal may have had.

When talking about freedom of speech, at least in the United States, I liked the quote from "The American President" when Michael Douglas playing President Andrew Shepherd says, "You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood boil, who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours."

Bitcoin (BTC) is the original. Anyone claiming any BTC fork is more original, or more authentic than BTC, or is the "real" BTC, is just not correct. Anyone can claim whatever they want because that's their opinion, but it doesn't mean they are right. Don't silence them with heavy handed tactics, like censorship, silence them with the truth. Yes, it's hard, fighting propaganda  always is, but it's the only way if credibility is to be maintained.