So your point is that Johnson only agrees that he’s unwell, but not unhinged? Also, your example isn’t even close to the same flow of conversation. He didn’t reply with a deflection, he literally said “And some people on your side are too”. Whether he intended to agree or not is debatable, but his statement is absolutely agreeing because he used the word “too” AND didn’t mention anything completely unrelated like in your example.
I politely disagree, saying “too” is as blatant of an agreement as he could’ve said. He tried to deflect, but failed and agreed.
It’s not a negation, but it is an anti-truth what-aboutism, which is meant to make the truthfulness of the statement insignificant.
I think it’s an attempt at an anti-truth what-aboutism, which Mike Johnson failed to come up with and accidentally agreed.
He didn’t pull it off well.
Define unwell. He and she are not talking about the same thing, he’s not agreeing with her, he’s muddying the water on what anyone is talking about.
Like “he’s committing genocide, he’s crazy” “but what about cinnamon rolls, that’s crazy too” is not him agreeing, it’s him changing the subject.
So your point is that Johnson only agrees that he’s unwell, but not unhinged? Also, your example isn’t even close to the same flow of conversation. He didn’t reply with a deflection, he literally said “And some people on your side are too”. Whether he intended to agree or not is debatable, but his statement is absolutely agreeing because he used the word “too” AND didn’t mention anything completely unrelated like in your example.