So, instead of arguing about the content of the argument itself, you spot its origin and add some swearwords in direction of the origin. This technique has a name, and the name is ad hominem. I'm not in a bubble, I use information from different sources. You would be a source of information too if you would argue about the content. Without this, you are a weak source of information. You nonetheless remain a source of information, because you cannot avoid this. The main information is that you have no arguments about the content, given that you use ad hominems. I dismiss only a very particular sort of "information and argument". Namely the information that the source of my information is rightwing. What matters for the classification as ad hominem is that 1.) there is some argument about some content in the context, 2.) The argument is not about this content but directed against the source of the argument. If you have a modified version of "ad hominem" which excludes some sorts of disparagement directed against the source, your choice. There is not one wrong-way driver, there are thousands of them. Of course, for somebody who uses ad hominem as the main tool of argumentation, it is natural to use a very restricted version of the meaning of "ad hominem". The justification is also easy to get - all one needs is an understanding of such classifications as "logical errors", which should be avoided at any costs. The consequence is that one has to exclude from "ad hominem" all those cases where the argument may be sometimes fine and reasonable. I do not use "ad hominem" in such a way, but in the wide sense, where every attack against the source of the information in a discussion about some content is classified as ad hominem. The consequence is that sometimes ad hominem arguments are reasonable. And in such a case I may use them too. So, I sometimes ignore arguments by people already disqualified as cranks based on ad hominem arguments. Shared by all these ad hominem arguments in the wide sense is that they are weak. So, if I use it against a crank, I recognize this very well, and I know that to find an error in his argument itself would be much stronger - it is simply not worth my time. A quite reasonable use of ad hominem is to point out that the source has a personal interest. This may be really important information, but it is nonetheless weak. Else, it would not make sense to hear the defendant in a criminal case, given that he obviously has an interest. I admittedly use it in a wide sense. The consequence is, correspondingly, weak - your ad hominem arguments appear to be weak, not invalid one or so. I think my approach, which only decreases the strength of some arguments, but does this for a wider range of arguments, is superior to a restricted approach which rejects only a small class of "logical errors" completely but leaves the wider class completely unimpaired. This is because most of our everyday reasoning is plausible reasoning, and it is much more important to have easy ways to find expectations about the strength of arguments in comparison with ultimate yes/no decisions. Of course, there is an implicit presupposition about some weak accuracy, else it would not be an argument at all. An explicit claim would have to contain some more information, thus, would have to claim higher accuracy than this minimal, presupposed accuracy. I would not make such additional claims about the accuracy.