My general view is that, in an ideal world, people would focus on the topic at hand and explore all available arguments in depth, regardless of their source.

Unfortunately, with the amount of arguments on any topic, and the amount of topics to explore, this usually isn't feasible. So we need to reduce the number of arguments we will explore to a manageable amount. We can use the trustworthiness of the source to achieve this.

That opens the possibility of dismissing a valid argument based on the source, but I believe it is necessary given the unmanagable amount of arguments in total. In a single human lifetime, it impossible to explore everything.

There are strategies to avoid falsehoods when doing this, like occasionally going deep on a single topic to better identify the trustworthy sources, or once in a while randomly exploring a source you would have otherwise dismissed.

In summary, I feel very comfortable dismissing Kratters opinions on bitcoin based on his crazy-ass views on other topics. There are plenty of better sources for arguments counter to my beliefs without having to turn to a nutjob like Kratter.

To be fair, the claim was that he went off the deep end and, without having seen those videos, they do sound like they'd potentially support the claim.