In a recent article in this journal—“Who’s Afraid of Dissent?”—Immaculada de Melo-Martín and Kristen Intemann argue that “targeting” dissent about science that is perceived to be problematic is both misguided and dangerous. I contend that their argument is unsuccessful. I present the Probability Argument to demonstrate that, in some circumstances, targeting problematic dissent will be a sound and reasonable response. Moreover, because not targeting dissent can also be misguided and dangerous, and because there are risks associated with leaning too heavily on education as a solution, it will sometimes be the case that targeting dissent is the best all-things-considered option. I sketch what is required for a more nuanced and contextual approach to evaluating and responding to dissent.