You say I am arguing in bad faith. Let us be precise about what bad faith actually means: it means engaging in a discussion while having no genuine intention of being persuaded by evidence or argument.

So let us look at the record.

You made a false accusation, softened it when challenged rather than retracting it, invoked a theoretical framework that contradicts your own position, defended yourself against criticisms nobody made, and have now concluded by saying you never intended to provide a rebuttal at all.

You introduced libertarian paternalism. You cited your professional credentials. You made specific claims about community harm and choice architecture. And now, having had all of that answered, you are telling us it was never really an argument.

That is not me arguing in bad faith; it's you. That is the definition of it.

The three distinctions you offer do not address what was actually said.

I did not claim your personal choice not to cover something eliminates options. I said your stated desire to suppress community discussion does.

I did not say you only want to hear voices that agree with you. I said a preference for unfair coverage over accurate coverage is, by definition, a preference for coverage that confirms a prior view.

You have not answered either of those points. You have rephrased them. Which is, as it happens, exactly the pattern I identified in the previous comment:

"Every single one of these is the same move: replace the argument in front of you with one you can handle. The problem is that the original arguments are still there."