Private lists of toxic people are one thing. Public, crowdsourced lists of people who should not be permitted to earn a livelihood, in the industry where they h

Private lists of toxic people are one thing. Public, crowdsourced lists of people who should not be permitted to earn a livelihood, in the industry where they have built their entire careers, are quite another. The disclaimers of advocacy, on which you place so much weight, ring rather hollow in light of the entire rest of the post, and especially the last couple of paragraphs: > So how does this get fixed? Truthfully, I don't know. The problem is so systemic in our communities. Fixing this is going to require buy-in from a vocal and powerful majority of people. It's going to have to mean people losing opportunities and their standing in our communities because of the things they do. > We cannot reprimand someone for their behavior while still allowing them to enjoy the privileges of their position without sending the message that we are somehow condoning their abusive actions. I concede that the words "We should maintain and enforce a blacklist" appear nowhere in Dryden's post. If that is the standard of evidence you require, before you'll entertain the suggestion that a blacklist is something Dryden advocates, then I see no point in our even attempting to have anything resembling a conversation. Otherwise, consider that offenses worthy of blacklisting, as enumerated in Dryden's first paragraph, range from battery and sexual assault -- which are felonies, not merely "bad behavior", and should be prosecuted as such -- to...dismissiveness. Perhaps you consider it reasonable for someone to equate peremptory rudeness and felony. That I should find it necessary even to entertain the possibility, that anyone finds that equation reasonable, is something that scares the hell out of me.