A few decades back I was into creating web pages. On of them was entirely stolen from an alas nameless source, Constructing a Logical Argument. The first part of the article described just that. You list premises, argue that each of your premises is true, then used logic to show that if all the premises were in fact true you could reach a logical conclusion. This conclusion could be countered by showing any one of the premises false, or the logic flawed.
But I was more interested in the bulk of the article that followed. They listed a few dozen fallacies, bad arguments, that are often used to support bad premises and bad logic. Most of them had Latin names. The fallacies had been seen by philosophers and debaters that long ago.
One of them is Argumetum ad Hominem, which translates to argument directed at the man. I you cannot attack what is being debated, you attack a man associated with the idea being presented. John wallows in it above. I might go as far as to suggest that every idea has a bad person that can be attacked. This does not disprove the idea. In the example, a charitable organization was used as a foil for personal gain. Black Lives Matter. Or is it the NRA? Or is it the dissolved Trump charity? Yes, bad people can be identified. One can argue why the laws against profiting from charity can, should and do exist, and argue that various people acted to violate the law, and thus ‘lock him up’ might be implemented. What that does not do is prove that the purported purpose of the charity is in some way unworthy. It does not prove minorities should be murdered, or that US citizens should not have a right to own and carry weapons.
Thus, John indulged in a totally irrelevant fallacy.
Now say Hitler, Stalin, Mao, al-Assad and Trump were each judged bad men. That does not prove conservative thought or tribal thought bad. However, each person could be associated with conservative thought or tribal thought. If they are judged bad because they indulged in certain philosophies, you could judge the philosophy itself bad. If you judge racism and violence bad, it seems possible to make such a judgement.
But not all aspects of conservative thought are bad. If it is acceptable to promote the general Welfare as the Constitution preamble suggests, if problems are more visible in urban areas than rural, is it unclear what action is of benefit generally?
But you should argue logically, not just refuse to acknowledge points you do not agree with. Of late, people seem to have realized they cannot defend much of their worldview. Rather than admit their failure and trying to fix it, they just ignore what they can’t debate against. They indulge in silence and fallacy.