even though I still take issue with the default seemingly being 'shill, unless enough effort is shown'.
Hey so check it out: That's not at all what I said. My criteria I listed for suspecting you of something dishonest were:
Reusing shill talking points
Using tactics like rampant strawmanning, just blandly pretending that someone said something different than they said and arguing against that instead of what they said.
Then I also mentioned that:
Since you seem like you're open to talking at this huge length which isn't usual for shills, that sort of makes me trust you again.
I have more to say, but I just wanna pause on this point for a second. Check this out:
Therein lies the pitfall of the shill-unless-proven-otherwise attitude - it makes it easy to characterize most people as shills
I literally never said that, or anything close to it. I listed two criteria that would fit a shill, and one that would exonerate someone from being a shill, and it sounds like you just totally edited away the first two and started telling me that I think everyone's a shill unless exonerated by the third.
Surely you can see how conducting the conversation like that would make someone conclude you're not speaking in good faith?
Like I say, I have more to say, but this is such a critical point that I want to pause and focus on it for a second.