AimIsADickclckwrkno one would ever write "mis-conflate," it's just awkward. the english language would read awfully if you could just type mis- in front of something every time you wanted to state the contrary.Yeah about that... Pretty sure prefixes in English work like that mate...
clckwrkalso, conflate often has a negative connotation, so "conflating" those two things would imply you're combining two things that don't usually combine, or combine poorly within that context, making the mis- completely useless. the way you're arguing your diction here leads me to believe you just heard conflate the other day and looked it up online, giving you a simple definition, but not a nuanced one. or, in other words, a mis-nuanced definition.
While it's usually fine to do so, it's not always a good idea to rely on connotation though.
In a philosophical argument for instance, the arguer may use conflate to describe words that are often blended together. They do not mean to say whether the blending is good or bad, so they merely say conflation. Conflation is not always to be bad implied bad though, so it is a bad idea to assume that the definition conflation in itself is bad. Thus the use of mis- to specify that a conflation was bad.
Another example is the term discrimination. When discrimination is used, it often refers to negative discrimination (like badly treating certain people). However not all forms of discrimination are negative; some are positive, like treating politicians better than corporations. It's usually fine to treat "discrimination" this way, but in some cases the context needs to be clarified.
NOTE: The corporations aren't being treated any worse, so this technically isn't a case of negative discrimination.
misdiscrimination