Nobody here has claimed anything is OK as far as I can see.
But given that neither option is particularly legitimate I would say thats a sound argument for not pushing through major irrevocable and potentially hugely damaging changes until the situation is resolved
I am not happy about either scenario (Johnson or Corbyn being PM), but Boris Johnson was elected entirely correctly according to the Conservative party rules, and it is his right to govern the country as PM if he can muster a majority. And Jeremy Corbyn has an entirely legitimate claim to govern the country if he wins a vote of no confidence and able to command a majority. That much is surely uncontroversial.
Obviously opposing parties can point out the deficiencies in such systems and there may be political dangers in following the letter but perhaps not the spirit of whatever "democracy" is deemed to mean. There are also obviously difficulties in an unwritten constitution in what might be the correct way forward regarding a General Election, a second referendum or the possibility of allowing No Deal to remain the default option before, after or during a general Election.
But the referendum result was legitimate, as was the mechanism to make May the leader of the Conservative Party, and thus PM, ditto Johnson and ditto Corbyn as Labour leader and thus leader of Her Majesty's Loyal opposition.
Personally I support Swinson and the Lib Dems, (so as not to seem to be defending Johnson or Corbyn too much).
I do think it would be terribly irresponsible of Johnson to push through a No Deal before a General Election, especially if he lost a vote of no confidence . The tension between representative democracy and democracy by referenda would be intolerably stretched.
I believe, however, that he will do better in a General Election than might be thought by some, whether or not Brexit has actually taken place.