This comment seems almost right. The author implicitly declares the existence of "memetic inoculation" as something they're describing, although they didn't spe

This comment seems almost right. The author implicitly declares the existence of "memetic inoculation" as something they're describing, although they didn't specify cases where it becomes difficult to separate a bad idea from a bad description of an idea. As someone else pointed out, crypto is an example where there are obviously good and bad ideas: using cryptography for distributed and decentralized contracts is a at the very least quite intriguing. Using crypto for a scam is quite a bad idea. But, then there are ideas that are really good, but who's outworkings are usually described poorly. Take Emacs as an example. "text editor that does everything, including email, accounting, browsing the web, file management, and much more" sounds like a bad idea to anyone with a modicum of appreciation for the Unix Philosophy. "An app that makes programming and using practical text-oriented, highly-integrative applications in Lisp" is a better description of what Emacs really is. Notice that in the former case, crypto and scams using crypto are two distinctly different ideas. In the latter case, we have two descriptions of essentially the same thing, which was an implementation of the modern idea of Emacs, which is factually a Lisp interpreter with built in text display. Those two descriptions could in theory be the basis for creating different apps, and they'd probably look quite different.