At what point does someone who is mostly reasonable, with a few bad takes become someone not worth listening to? Also, can we separate the art from the artist? For example with Badempanada, he has a couple bad China takes and is kind of toxic online, but he’s well researched, so it really depends whether ML’s I’ve met listen to him. Do you listen to Maoists who are good 95% of the time, but might have a bad Gonzalo take from time to time? Or is there enough agreeable content on the internet that you can just listen to those you agree with? Are certain bad takes just too bad? Will you stop listening to someone after they say something transphobic, even if they’re good the rest of the time like Paul Cockshott? Or if someone is willing to talk with someone like a Larouchite, are they automatically a right deviationist with nothing worthwhile to say, or are the just forming a United front on a specific issue?
Edit out the rambling.
If someones being hateful where it feels like the point is to hate whoever they hate with them thats a redline for me personally. Otherwise if someone is lying to me or I feel they’re intentionally lying.
If information seems tertiary or a rehash of other peoples opinions.
If people want get off a tired subject or a subject I don’t personally want to hear about over and over again. Where it feels they’re getting me lost in the mud.
For me the Empanada thing was annoying but I still respected for his better work
But primarily make up your own mind rather than letting people on a forrum decide where you draw your lines.