This is the genetic fallacy, unless you believe that these particular comments are somehow reflective of the odious views you are referencing.

But congratulations, you win. I will delete that link rather than be drawn into an unrelated conversation about the history of one man's views.

It is a fallacy in a strictly formal sense.

But frankly in today's world where we've got people making serious decisions in government who are avowed segregationists I think it is rather important to mention when people oppose the Civil Rights Act when considering their opinion on political news.

Hanania's opinions here are not one weird quirk. They are central to the modern GOP's project.

I am sorry, but this is stupid. You brought an argument on the basis that it comes from a neutral source. Turns out, it was not a neutral source. What do you do: hide the source.

Edit to clarify what I mean: You could have written that you are of the same opinion, independent of who that is. But instead you hide it, as if you had come to that conclusion totally on your own.

I was not leaning on the credibility of this person in any way except to say that it changed his mind on this one specific issue.

When a reply mentioned unrelated past statements from the same person, it was clear that they wanted to tar the statement by association rather than discuss it substantively.

And I think that you should be immensely skeptical of what somebody like Hanania is trying to do to your mind and beliefs.

I believe that mentioning that he is a virulent racist who is actively seeking a much more brutal and unjust world is critical to the substance of his other political writing. These are not unrelated statements.