Ok, fair enough, I was a little hasty with my response. Let me elaborate on what I meant.

Regarding your 3 point list for determining reasonable suspicion"

Reusing shill talking points

I want to thoroughly address this one, because there's a good reason why shill talking points are talking points to begin with.

Shills primary objective is to sow distrust/chaos in a group, and a prerequisite for doing that effectively is to not be suspected of being a malicious agent. To that end, the talking points they use will always bear a resemblance to legitimate stances of the target group. Frequently they highlight a deep division in ideology or an inconsistency in the logic of the coalition, and they pound on that in order to drive a wedge.

There's a very good reason why legitimate leftist agitation looks an awful lot like that - for the most part, leftist agitators also seek to drive a wedge within the coalition, but not to sow chaos. They do so in order weaken the centrist consensus and breed discontent with the status quo. It's similar to what the civil rights leaders did: elevate the issue to such a volume that the people who consistently refuse to negotiate are forced to address it, and the medium through which that discontent is sown is the complacent moderate, who agrees in principle but has no reason to risk their own security to push for the change without disruption.

I get why this is one of three on your list, but you have to understand why this is too broad on its own: legitimate leftist agitation works and sounds much the same way as malicious agitation. What makes the difference between agitation that sows chaos and agitation that sows change is how moderates respond to the agitation. If agitation is effective for change, it will create just enough discomfort to spur action, but not so much that it breeds apathy, nihilism, and more complacency.

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.

This is a very fair point, and I'll acknowledge that i've been short and quippy in this exchange and the thread broadly. However, as I pointed out to someone else, a part of persuasion is reframing your partners assertions in order to illuminate an inconsistency - any time I'm reframing something you've said, I'm doing so in order to reveal a deeper issue. In this instance the issue (i'll touch more on this at the end), is that your three rules are too broad, and effectively can be applied to most people who disagree with you. A good example of this that I know you're thinking of when you're looking at my culpability of this is this meme. I'm well aware of how provocative this meme was, and that was the point. I was pointing to the comfortable rhetoric some centrists were using (your choice is binary at the ballot box) and reflecting back at them the rhetoric they were using as shelter from that discomfort. The point of the meme was to point out that what they were doing right then was rationalizing a choice they hadn't been asked to make yet, and avoiding the choice they were making in that moment to convince people upset about the Isreali conflict that their concern was less important than the broader goal of defeating Trump (which is true, but that choice of rhetoric was also sheltering them from having to engage with their party). It was and is essential to make that distinction well known, because 'trump will be the end of us all' has the rhetorical potential to de-fang legitimate grievence within the base and relieves pressure on Biden and the democrats.

I'll also address a skepticism you've raised before about the pointlessness of agitating in this way on a small site like Lemme that will never be seen by Biden: by using that agitation to call out the comforting rhetoric being used, it makes the counter messaging of the democratic operation a lot less effective, and (ideally) prevents them from being able to hide behind convenience logic and actually address the issue. That's why James Carville got on his podcast and was cursing out pro-palestinian activists for raising the issue so loudly: he knows that it's a losing issue if it's elevated above other, less controversial issues, and there's not an easy way to message out of it if it keeps getting pushed.

The reason for the explanation: I know you thought this meme was an intentional strawman, and to some degree it was an intentional re-framing of the issue. But it wasn't a 'misrepresentation' of any real position (i wasn't arguing they were anyone was "fine with a little genocide"), I was simply pointing out those people who were the subject of the meme, caught between a genocide they cannot themselves support but are desperate to fend off a trump presidency, needed to convince those undecided anti-genocide voters to vote for biden, and they could either convince them to vote by arguing that issue was less important, or by pushing the party platform to welcome those people back into coalition.

This is an important distinction, because provocative agitation only works by de-constructing those arguments that get in the way of directed action. Sometimes that looks or feels like an intentional misrepresentation, but it is importantly not a representation of a false stance but a rejection of the framing that the stance depends on.

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.

This being the only qualifier that doesn't apply to me specifically, it's not unreasonable to point out that it's the only one that really distinguishes a good-actor and a bad-actor in your eyes, even though there are absolutely leftist political agitators that fit those first two on your list and do not give long and drawn-out responses like me. I'd venture to say that those people are not really doing the educate or organize parts of educate-agitate-organize, but sometimes you just have to live with a bit of disagreement when you're a leftist.

I was admittedly being reckless by using the "shill-unless-proven-otherwise" shorthand, but the above is what I was essentially driving at: your method of determining good-will or bad-will seems to have no way of distinguishing between 'shills' and leftist political agitators, and that effectively has a 'chilling-effect' on the entire community. That's why every criticism of Biden here is always couched in "but i'm voting for him anyway"; without signaling 'I am not seeking to cause chaos' every critique is potentially suspect of being bad-faith. It's a cancer for actual activism and it's another one of the convenient logics that can dismiss uncomfortable confrontation as unworthy of engagement.

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.

I agree, and I appreciate the way in which you did and that you allowed me to address it.