No, you were definitely not carb shaming; that’s not even a real thing. I was making light of the reductionist, ad hominem argument that those of us arguing in favor of retaining the ability to metabolize carbs are nothing more than addicts rationalizing self-destructive behavior with made up words.
I thought it seemed unreasonable, and a bit funny. Sometimes, the absurdity of an argument can be brought to light by taking it to it’s logical extreme. If someone actually believed that supporters of metabolic flexibility are simply carb addicts making up words, then “metabolic flexibility” would be a defensive term, a rationalization. I was trying to imagine what an attacking/offensive made-up word would be. In the current zeitgeist, there is no more cruel and vicious attack you can make than to accuse someone of oppressing or victimizing. Hence the made-up word “carb shaming”. It’s the sort of word a self-deluded carb addict would invent to attack those who would deprive him of his fix.
There is no such thing as “carb-shaming” obviously, and anyone who used it in a sentence with even a hint of sincerity would be laughed out of any room they happened to be in (and rightly so).
An ad hominem argument is wrong because it’s a classic logical fallacy that attacks the speaker rather than his arguments. Attacking an hominem argument is not wrong, because it is an argument put forth against a logical fallacy either directly or by highlighting it’s absurdity. To your point though, the mocking tone I adopted was passive aggressive and less constructive than simply pointing it out explicitly. Sorry.
At any rate, this has been a fascinating discussion that has gotten me thinking about “metabolic flexibility”, which I had never given thought to previously. I’m following it with keen interest.