More ad-hominem means less argument, jk. And who is a troll? Is it someone who selectively quotes small passages - generously peppered with ellipses and paraphrases - from a 6K+ word article with the transparent intent to smear someone as an antisemite and to encourage readers not to examine well-documented sources of information?

And do the howls of someone seemingly obsessed by feelings of inferiority and hauling a permanent chip on his shoulder make you more or less confident of his rationality?

If you were grading an undergraduate and saw that s/he made a transparent, easily confirmed effort to distort and misrepresent quotes so as to rob someone of their dignity and assault their character, would you give them a A or an F? If that undergraduate's argument was based on emotionalism, ad-hominems, and guilt by association, would you pass or fail him?

And when such attempts blow up in their faces and leave them looking like mendacious and vicious partisans, do you look to them as worthy of trust in other matters? So who's the troll?

Or is intellectual honesty and a fearless commitment to following the truth wherever it leads, whatever sacred cows are gored in the process, something that can be jettisoned when attacking cultural and political enemies? Certainly that's the fashion among people of the Left these days. But it's unflattering garb all the same.