It would be literally impossible to know whether a user disabled JavaScript on another site, so I'm going to say that they meant that for their own sites.

> you say that as if they've done some harm to you or anyone else.

I was literally responding to someone referring to themselves as "collateral damage" and saying I'm playing into "Big Adtech's playbook". I explained why they're wrong.

> the correct course of action is to act like they don't exist.

Unless someone is making a site that explicitly targets users unwilling or unable to execute JavaScript, like an alternative browser that disables it by default or such, mathematically, yes, that's the correct course of action.