The person he was responding to wasn't simply making a [possibly] incorrect statement about medical treatments, he was insisting that the media generally favouring the emerging consensus of medical professions on treatments was "state lies after state lies" and "all propaganda"
I'm not sure it's fair (or even remotely in good faith) to argue that it's people responding to arguments expressed in that manner that are lowering the standard of internet discourse...
It's certainly fair and probably said in good faith. This is why people say "two wrongs don't make a right". Just because one person is lowering a bar doesn't mean a second can't lower it further.
I'd love to hear how a bar for discourse set at "[everything you read on unrelated wedge issue I've inserted into the conversation] is lies and propaganda" is lowered by "this is disinformation. Here's a study"...
People say "two wrongs don't make a right" when they're not singling out the words of only the second party as the reason why people can't talk to each other on the internet.
> People say "two wrongs don't make a right" when they're not singling out the words of only the second party as the reason why people can't talk to each other on the internet.
People say "two wrongs don't make a right" when they're saying that one bad behavior in response to another bad behavior is still a bad behavior.
> "this is disinformation. Here's a study"...
This is both more reasonable than and different from what was written.
> Where do you get that disinfo??
Couldn't that part simply have been left out? More to the point, is a person definitely wrong for thinking that it ought to have been left out?
> I'd love to hear how a bar [that is ostensibly resting on the ground] is lowered
> More to the point, is a person definitely wrong for thinking that it ought to have been left out?
That is both more reasonable and different from what was written :-p
Yes, I think it is absolutely unfair for someone to observe an exchange between somebody ranting about how mainstream scientific consensus is all lies and propaganda and somebody in turn dismissing their argument for why everything was all lies and propaganda as disinfo, and place the blame for the internet discourse in general being suboptimal squarely on the terms used by the second person.
This obsession with disinfo, misinfo, malinfo portends exceedingly troubling things for our ability to talk with each other on the internet.