I empathize with your feelings, but iobjectively, if an author makes three good points and then pours toxic emotional sewage all over them, the good points are still the gooid points.
We may not want to read the author esposuing them any further, who needs toxic sewage? But the sewage cannot nullify a point that we recognize as true. Its truth is independent of whether the author is a goofd or bad person. Its truth is independent of whether the author argues it well or poorly.
It's unfortunate when good points get covered in toxic emotions. I wouldn't say that we should read such things whether we like it or not, but having read them, I say we take the good points and repackage them in less vitriolic prose.
It undermines his judgement. He makes sweeping, subjective arguments, which isn't inherently a bad thing but it means those arguments are more than just cold facts. The amount of heated emotion he apparently has around this subject means that his ability to draw conclusions from "soft" information is compromised.
If we’re talking about a syllogism, fine. If we’re talking about some mixture of logic with historical recollections, suppositions about other peoples’ state of mind, etc... the narrator starts to matter more. If I can trust him to be objective and reasonable, it weakens the piece.
We may not want to read the author esposuing them any further, who needs toxic sewage? But the sewage cannot nullify a point that we recognize as true. Its truth is independent of whether the author is a goofd or bad person. Its truth is independent of whether the author argues it well or poorly.
It's unfortunate when good points get covered in toxic emotions. I wouldn't say that we should read such things whether we like it or not, but having read them, I say we take the good points and repackage them in less vitriolic prose.