This is a lot of rationalization to essentially say "I think that public shaming is acceptable behavior". That wall of text is required because the simple trut

This is a lot of rationalization to essentially say "I think that public shaming is acceptable behavior". That wall of text is required because the simple truth is unpalatable to most observers. Instead, you must engage in an exceptional rhetorical dance to draw a parellel (not equate, as you say, despite the fact that you then use rhetoric to draw an equivalence, and use that equavalence to justify behavior) between sophomoric jokes and very serious topics like racial and sexual violence. From that position, you can then justify almost any of Adria's actions, since she was facing systemic sexual and racial violence due to an overhead 'dongle' joke. Where does personal responsibility, proportion, professionalism, and consequences factor in to your worldview? After all, there may be systemic "microaggressions" as you state, but would you claim that someone reacting disproportionally to them should be absolved of the professional responsibilities to which they committed themselves? How far does your logic of transference extend? This appears to be an application of homeopathy to personal responsibility, where some root justification, no matter how diluted by reality, can provide justification for inappropriate reaction to a perceived or actual offense. To approach some individual points: > Twitter and blogging are totally available to the gentlemen in question. Public shaming is not mob justice. I don't expect that they have 10k followers, and even if they did, responding would not be likely to improve the eventual outcome for any involved. Some things, once said, can not be unsaid or countered. Negative public discourse is a tar baby, and the internet has a permanent memory.