fyi, I started my comment with fyi. The point being that the premise of the article is overblown.
McGaugh says the same here https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-matter-may-b....
McGaugh says the same here https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dark-matter-may-b....
When we are discussing not-settled facts, there's better ways to frame our discussion.
For instance: "I believe, that CDM is an antiquated theory and MOND is a better explanation, because _______. I've had discussions with ______ and in particular ______"
It's less effort than your opening flame, it's less abrasive, and it opens productive discourse. Your opening statement is more like that of a political partisan than someone seeking discussion.
Therefore, learning from their experience, the one thing that works is accurately calling the status quo's invisible blobs of noninteracting kludge as what it is.