CpT_x_Killsteal said:
If a crazy person says "slavery is bad", should I agree with them or tell them to go away? Focusing on a comment's author is just pointless. If the message is good, I'll agree with the message. If someone I normally disagree with, agrees with me on a point, I'm not going to freak out about it and call him a horrible person. And if someone I normally disagree with makes a point, that I agree with, I'm not going to focus on the point rather than the person making it.
If your opinion on things are formed from the author of the points, rather than the point itself, then your opinion forming process is dangerously flawed. For example, you'd end up looking at, say, H.P. Lovecraft's stories as horrid racist, sexist creations, rather than fantasy books.
If a known crazy person comes up to you and says "slavery is bad" you should say "...ok" and then walk away slowly. There's a difference between happening to have common ground with a crazy person, and deciding to give said crazy person a platform and holding him up as one of the main proponents of your cause. It's not so much that I would freak out at someone like Adam Baldwin for agreeing with me on something, it's that I wouldn't want him to be the guy going out and spreading the message because his craziness
diminishes said message. So if I were to say, publish an interview with him where we discuss gamegate, I am effectively singling him out and saying "This is someone whose opinion NEEDS to be heard on the matter." And now people associate your cause with a crazy person
Also I don't know why you're completely factoring out the author's views in this instance. Firstly, I'd say works of art/entertainment (like Lovecraft's stuff) are entirely separate entities from political stances. While authorial intent is an important part of analyzing literature/film/music/whatever, works can indeed take on meanings that the author did not intend. Opinions on works of art can also be multi-faceted; you can think H.P. Lovecraft's stories are masterpieces (which they are) while still acknowledging the fact that they are loaded with racism (which they are).
But, authorial intent is the
driving force behind political stances. You are literally saying "this is what I think," there're no unintentional meanings unless you don't bother to think out your words. People can still misinterpret you, but that's on them unless you're just really bad at expressing what you mean. Opinions on other people's political stances can be somewhat multi-faceted as well (I agree with these things he said; I disagree with these other things he said), but really you should look at the summation of a person's views to determine whether or not they are rational in choosing their stances.
Adam Baldwin has proven himself to be highly irrational in just about every area of thought, but even if you think he's being rational here that does not mean he is an ideal candidate to represent you. If someone like him shouts his support the appropriate response should be to shrug and then look for someone with a shred of credibility to hand the torch to.