What's the point of pollution the conversation with useless ill informed fake-authoritative opinions that no one should act upon? This isn't "I tried Python and had a lot of problems with dynamic types", it's uninformed specualtion on an arbitrary sample of information the they haven't trained to understand.
then use that against the argument. Break it for what it is not worth, but don't attack the person itself and the right to free speech. Where would you draw the line for defining what is polluting the conversation and what is not? Can you see the danger there? This trend of checking someones credentials before hearing the argument can become elitist real fast. Careful to not become the censorship we condemn
