It seems to me that using a few isolated incidents to push for widespread censorship and financial excommunication is exactly missing the forest for the trees.
Furthermore, even if you think this is a principled stand, how does that justify censoring the discussion itself?
Appealing to an axiomatic consensus that this is a "bad post" and a "bad look" is just populism in disguise. There is no doubt that freedom necessarily increases suffering too, as it provides more opportunity for abuse, but we generally accept this, the same way we accept that having a Justice system opens the door to malicious prosecution or perps walking free.
It takes a special kind of arrogance to think you can judge adequately what the second and third order effects of a policy will be, and even more arrogance that you know better than centuries of enlightenment values.
Furthermore, even if you think this is a principled stand, how does that justify censoring the discussion itself?
Appealing to an axiomatic consensus that this is a "bad post" and a "bad look" is just populism in disguise. There is no doubt that freedom necessarily increases suffering too, as it provides more opportunity for abuse, but we generally accept this, the same way we accept that having a Justice system opens the door to malicious prosecution or perps walking free.
It takes a special kind of arrogance to think you can judge adequately what the second and third order effects of a policy will be, and even more arrogance that you know better than centuries of enlightenment values.