It's far too much effort to remember individual people's names. Like, I will on occasion in passing, but I will register the lies and the deceit before I register who is doing the deceiving.

Any dismissal of ideas based on the source of the ideas would be an up-river issue: The percent of ideas I get exposed to that are sourced from the idiots, irrational, and psychopaths, is far less than that of the sane, rational, and kind. So in a heuristic sense, I dismiss the ideas before the ideas ever reach my ears, because I don't tend to seek out their content.

I'm not going to watch an 8-hour Hasan stream as he zaps his dog, glazes houthi terrorists, and waxes poetic about communism. 8 hours is a lot of verbal output, he probably would have, accidentally, said one or two reasonable and sane things across it. But as I do not watch the stream, I have now dismissed those ideas, alongside his terror-glazing, out of hand: I never even heard them.

If I DO hear the ideas, I'll assess them independently. I may be more prone to charitable interpretations of vague points or unclear conclusions from one side over another, but in terms of the strict statements said, I feel like if they DO manage to reach me, they're impartially assessed.

"That's a great idea. Shame you and yours will never follow it, and it's just propaganda." is often an end-result of the assessment, of course. There's a reason the Motte-And-Bailey argument style works. It's because there IS a valid idea, a defensible stance, at the core of things: they just torture and abuse that stance until it is unrecognizable, then retreat to the sane stance if called out upon.