Option 2: To let everyone understands how effective the discourse may be after removing all the bullshit from it, or add penalty on having bullshit in any punishable discourse, like essay or Sunday post.
Option 3: Kuhn defines different science in its revolution as “paradigm,” which means “their achievement was sufficiently unprecedented to attract an enduring group of adherents away from competing modes of scientific activity. Simultaneously, it was sufficiently open-ended to leave all sorts of problems for the redefined group of practitioners to resolve.” (Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) However, I think this concept also works in fields other than science. For example, the modern general thinking mode (which is also the mode I am writing now) is also a paradigm, let us call it as “paradigm of thinking” for convenience of later reference. The development of the way of thinking is gradual, and some people do think in different ways, and the “paradigm of thinking” is unprecedented and open-ended, which satisfies the requirements of being a paradigm. The question may be an existential one: Can we define different scientific paradigms in revolution only using our current “paradigm of thinking?” The link between science and philosophy that Kuhn made really interests and puzzles me. After all, science used to be natural philosophy. I think the definition now may be inadequate, but once people try to categorize different paradigms, the move itself is also in a modern “paradigm of thinking.”