I've spent a lot of time both reading others' papers and manuscripts, writing my own stuff and then reading what others think of what I've written.
In thinking about reading something you think is really, really wrong, there are a couple of things you might find it useful to keep in mind. Or not.
First of all, Anne Lamott's comments in Bird by Bird about first drafts. She says that with the exception of a few impossible people, writers produce awful first drafts. In fact, she's talking about fiction writers, and I don't write fiction, but I was really cheered up by that, because when I read my own first drafts, I typically think I should find another job. I mean, we are talking pretty awful. Lamott says to take comfort in the fact that you can hide them and NO ONE will see them. That's just fine, but surely she's let some first drafts out. Rushed, feeling you need to say something rather than nothing, you put down what seems pretty good, and hand it in, send it off, etc. And too often you live to regret it.
When you see a really bad draft, you have often have two options:
This person is having a psychotic break with reality.
This person really failed to get their message right.
A teacher, a friend, an editor or anyone wanting to understand what you think needs to start with the latter. It may of course be the case that you are dealing with someone in a psychotic episode, but that's not a very good starting point in general, since psychosis, lunacy and complete stupidity are statistically rare and much rarer than drafts that look lunatic. And one reason for going for the more charitable interpretation is that it might actually be right, and you might need to know that.
Another thing to remember is that when we see someone else doing something bad, we tend to assign it to a bad flaw in their characteract rather than to something more fleeting. (We nicely exempt ourselves.) This seems particularly true if we have some prior negative feelings toward them or toward their group. Just yesterday someone told me someone from the upper admin was coming by to look at his work and he had not been told about it; he was upset, thought it was part of a power-play, etc. That's what's called the Fundamental Attribution Error at work. In fact, having had experience with the admin's office, I suspect it was just a screw-up in communication. The difference is between locating the cause of the problem in the person's character (he's one of these petty bureaucrats who enjoys putting people in difficult situations) or circumstances like having an office that sometimes drops the ball.
So suppose someone writes something that implies that FDR started WWII. Now, we do know that that is completely false. What he did do, according to historical records, was at least tell Churchill that he wanted to get the country in the war to help save England and the rest of Europe, but he certainly did not start it. And then Japan made our entry nearly inevitable. So is what was really meant that FDR led the country into war? Or something else?
Or suppose someone says something that looks like they're saying that income tax is unconstitutional. Do they mean all are? Or some? Or is the point that you can tax for X, but it is unconstitutional to use it for Y and hide that? Or something else?
So does Cindy really believe the nutty things she was saying? Is she rightly seen as really worthless now, an enemy who has no good future?
Or did she make some pretty bad mistakes in what she said because she was in a hurry and is far away from the days when she had teachers telling her to write a first draft AND NOT hand it in.
Was she just spewing nutty stuff or did she have some vague idea about historical compromises adding up??
Or is something else entirely going on?
I'm sure not going to decide, but my sense is that the future will let show us.