It was a false equivalence, and deserves to be treated as such.

In which ways is it inaccurate?

You can be accurate and still be uncharitable. Educate, don’t chastise or mock. And never make it personal.

Normally, charity in an interpretation means that there's a way that it could be taken where it makes sense. I don't think that's the case for this comment.

The most charitable interpretation I have is that the original poster is a paid shill -- in other words, they're bright enough to realize what they're saying is idiotic, but they're just doing a job to put food on the table. It'd take some evidence to sway me to that view.

Seriously?

I don't agree with their comment. But after looking at their comment history, I see no evidence for them being "a paid shill". Contrarian and outspoken, sure. But not a shill.

So much for not making it personal!