I believe defamation, or "communicating false statements about a person that injure their reputation" doesn't apply either.
I believe your criticism is describing that the poster didn't reaffirm/"yes, and" the author, but rather, posited an alternative explanation.
I would call this "tone deaf" if it was a person they had a personal relationship with, "gaslighting" if it occurred repeatedly and they were lying in service of attempting to manipulate the author, and dead serious, not being sarcastic, the worst I could call it in this situation is "disagreeing".[1]
I'm really struggling to come up with something that satisfies the requirement that we describe the person you originally replied to negatively, since neither psychological manipulation of the individual or lying are involved. Being primed to describe this situation as either of those might be throwing me off, I'm curious if you have a lengthier explanation that can give us some color as to what part of the comment you're trying to describe
[1] Personally, I wouldn't call it disagreeing, because I got the sense from the article that the author believes they've done all they can with off-the-shelf tools and a laymen's analysis of planning documents, and they wrote up the post _specifically_ because they needed more help, hopefully from institutions, to find the explanation
I believe your criticism is describing that the poster didn't reaffirm/"yes, and" the author, but rather, posited an alternative explanation.
I would call this "tone deaf" if it was a person they had a personal relationship with, "gaslighting" if it occurred repeatedly and they were lying in service of attempting to manipulate the author, and dead serious, not being sarcastic, the worst I could call it in this situation is "disagreeing".[1]
I'm really struggling to come up with something that satisfies the requirement that we describe the person you originally replied to negatively, since neither psychological manipulation of the individual or lying are involved. Being primed to describe this situation as either of those might be throwing me off, I'm curious if you have a lengthier explanation that can give us some color as to what part of the comment you're trying to describe
[1] Personally, I wouldn't call it disagreeing, because I got the sense from the article that the author believes they've done all they can with off-the-shelf tools and a laymen's analysis of planning documents, and they wrote up the post _specifically_ because they needed more help, hopefully from institutions, to find the explanation