That's a real bad example. If you claim to be doing a detailed survey of dog behavior in a park people will reasonably assume that you've put in the work, regardless of the surrounding politics. The authors did not do that; their entire "research" about canine rape culture was simply made up. That's obviously unethical behavior in any academic context.
The only reasonable option I see is a culture of reproducing results from independent data and blacklisting people when a high percentage of their papers turn out to be bogus. Because what’s happening today in many fields is simply wasting everyone’s time and money.
Your argument seems to be more about "because some people were duped, it's ok to assume reasonable people were duped" and that doesn't seem right to me.
So just because something is obviously fake doesn’t really mean much in context. After all the goal of science is to step beyond people’s intuition to discover what’s actually happening. Thus at some level people need to actually consider very odd ideas as possible and then collect data etc.
It was so incredibly absurd that the hoax ought to have been obvious from the abstract; that the journal editors and reviewers could not recognize the hideously obvious hoax right in front of their noses is the scandal.