[saghm]

> This is trying far too hard to be charitable. Mistake theory is great, and it's good that the article mentions it, but it then also presents sufficient evidence to prove, or at least substantiate, malice.

The benefit of the doubt only exists as long as there is doubt. Once there's an overwhelming body of evidence that removes any of it, continuing to give it is pretty suspicious, like you mention.

[andrewflnr]

For what it's worth, I do think the author is only guilty of being too kind. I wouldn't call it suspicious in this case.

[saghm]

I'll rephrase: I don't have any reason to actively think they're malicious, but I don't really trust the judgment of someone who sees a person advocate for what they describe as a racist national policy after years of similar opinions and thinks that it's important enough to stop paying a subscription to that person's service, but is concerned about whether they're going to hurt the feelings of that person by actually concluding that maybe the reason they're always advocating for racist policies is just racist.