So my orientation isn’t generally to just assume bad faith from everyone, you can take that to be willful ignorance, but it’s also just an understanding that people can do impulsive things or make mistakes without it being a complete indictment of everyone they even associate with.

I never said bad faith. I literally just described what happened: I came in, disagreed with them, and then I described the reaction I got.

I do think you could draw a conclusion of a certain type of mentality from that reaction, although looking back I can see a lot of hostility on my side, so I kind of get it. But all we've been talking about now in these 7 different messages I have sent you about it is the simple reality facts of what happened. That has to be the starting point before anyone makes any kind of judgement built on it. I sent you proof, links, all kinds of stuff, and you're still up to right now coming with "looks like a misunderstanding" "if there was some censorship goal" and so on.

I'm not assuming bad faith. I'm describing what happened. I'm not saying it's an indictment of everyone. We're just talking about what happened.

To me, it looks like what you're doing is the converse of what you say: You're bending over backwards like Professor Farnsworth to try to assume good faith, even refusing to accept or examine clear convincing evidence, or say "well both sides" or try to come up with reasons why it must probably be some other way.

I also notice that you're extremely eager to assume bad faith from lemmy.world. You said they said to shut up about Palestine. I can absolutely guarantee that they said no such thing (or at least 99% of them said no such thing, I won't swear for every single user). You keep saying you're "paraphrasing" or that "You guys have already demonstrated what you believe" when someone's trying to explain that they believe no such thing. You will not accept any kind of thing that illustrates good faith. After all, they already demonstrated what they believe.

The reason I'm making a big deal about this is that, for as long as you simply want to cling to your preferred version of events, so that you can "assume good faith" when in other contexts you go hard hard hard in the other direction, I don't see much point in talking to you about any more complex topics.

Some people get endless good faith. You must have misunderstood. Out of context. Well look at what these other people did. I'm not sure I believe that source.

Some other people get absolutely no good faith, in fact you already know the truth about them, they've already revealed what they believe, so your viewpoint's not going to change.

Like I say: Waste of time. Trying to build a more complex discussion in the face of that type of approach is going to take way more than 7 messages, and you probably still will cling to your preferred preexisting interpretation, so oh well.

Edit: Also, what are you talking about with rss.ponder.cat versus ponder.cat? They're just two different instances with totally different communities, I have no idea about links to one being going to the other or anything like that. I don't think that is happening. Can you show me which page you're looking at, and which link someone might click that leads to the wrong one of them or etc? It might be a bug or something but I have never seen that behavior and it shouldn't be that way.