I mean, the first example you gave is pretty much exactly what he was saying as an analogy earlier in the blog post. It seems somewhat preposterous to give the benefit of the doubt to this like it was an accident when it wouldn't be at all hard for someone who cared about the difference to express it more clearly. It's not like he's unaware that people already think that he holds views like this, so the ambiguity seems more like intentional dogwhistling/plausible deniability than an innocent mistake from someone who didn't think that anyone might read their words in that way.