First of all you're making a subjective argument on your own ability and classing, then applying that to lower rated players to reach a conclusion.
My argument was illustrated with an example. In the example, my hapless opponent was rated HIGHER than me and is a titled player.
My argument is that both of us proved ourselves to be very bad.
In reply to the OP's question, the answer is that to be no longer bad, you have to be a lot better than the people I play with.
Of course, by extension, those below us are likely equally horrid, maybe even more so, but that was never the crux of my argument.
You started this squabble by brushing off my view as subjective. Of course it is subjective. Subjective arguments have merit when they are grounded in evidence. An assertion can be objective, and yet wrong. It's the nature of the evidence that matters. You have been ignoring evidence (your word is "redundant") and hence misreading arguments.
You claim that you looked at my games, but you were posting your riposte less than a minute after it appeared. No one at my rating level is gonna absorb the nuances of the second game, the one that provoked your instant rebuttal, in less than a minute. I think it is fair to conclude that your skills are somewhat below that. It is likely that you cannot understand that game in an hour's study. My opponent and I spent an hour going through it after playing it for three. I'm still struggling to understand how the game became so difficult after the nice position I got from the opening.
The point in that game was to refute your assertion that I find lower rated players easy. Quite the contrary. Stronger players beat weaker players because they take them seriously. I know that we are both bad, but I assume otherwise concerning my opponent when we play.
This has sort of devolved into people arguing their subjective belief about player strength which will obviously never lead anywhere. If you're going to question what a 'good' player is, you have to have some kind of concrete basis to start with. Otherwise you just keep spinning around subjective interpretations. I don't think Chess.com rating is a very good basis since there are so many inactive, duplicate, beginners that play a few games then stop, cheaters, etc.
I would say your basis for 'good' should be whatever the average OTB rating is in your city/area and then evaluating each player as being above or below that median. Regardless, find a basis and then you'll find your answer.