Tell me, exactly how you delineate the difference between opinions that are inexcusable, and opinions that are simply in opposition?
I expounded on this. Was it TL;DR for you?
By contrast, what I hereby consider is an opinion that directly, unavoidably, substantively demonstrates the untrustworthiness of he who expresses it. Is it untrustworthy behaviour to demand that scammy, dishonest people should not be shamed? I say, yes!
I get the very distinct impression that this is a sock puppet for another well known little girl here...
Stop trying to prove that Lauda is Craig Wright. It is defamatory.
What is stopping you from just claiming an opinion is "directly, unavoidably, substantially" untrustworthy frivolously? These are all extremely subjective things by its very nature. The ambiguity in punishing opinions and speech of any kind is inevitably a back door for abuse. All one has to do is claim that the speech/opinion is XYZ and therefore it is justifiable to use the trust system against it.
All this will result in is the perpetual conflict the trust system has seen in the past as people frivolously accuse others of being liars or supporting scams by offering defense of people they believe to be scammers. Regarding your comment about Lauda being Craig Wright, I have never once made such an accusation, so I am not sure what you are jibbering about.