It is an important observation, and a reminder: evaluate positions on their merits, and not who is taking the position.

While I agree (and I agree with the upstream comments, too), there's often deeper reasons why we can short circuit fully evaluating an argument made on its merits: often the "merits", or lack thereof, are derived from the party's values and beliefs, and if we know those values to be corrupt, it's likely that subsequent arguments are going to be similarly corrupt.

There's only so much time in the day, only so much life to live. Could a blog post written by the worst person you know have a good point, even though it's titled something like "An argument in favor of kicking puppies" by Satan himself? I mean, true, I haven't read it, yet. There could be a sound, logical argument buried within.

This is also what "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" teaches, essentially. Trust is hard-won, and easily squandered.

"A lie is around the world before the truth has finished tying its shoes."

"Flood the Zone" is why some of us are so exhausted, though.

In these instances, the argument has to come from someone who is self-aware enough of the short-circuit to say "okay, look, I am going to address that elephant" — but mostly, that's not what happens.

Thankfully in this case, all we need get through is the title.

It's also important to read the fine print when the perceived good position is coming from a guy who tried to sue Tylenol over autism.

This guy does nothing good on purpose.