Hm, I hear you to a degree. I can definitely see how it can become harassment if people don't respect a person's request to leave them be, or the comments are a more a reaction to who the person is than their actual comment.
Right, glad you agree so far.
That said, in that sea lion comic, all I can think of is someone saying "I can deal with most people, but Latinos? I could do without Latinos", and then having the nerve to be incensed when their comment is repeatedly challenged. The comment deserved to be challenged. If the person didn't want to be challenged, they should have kept their comment to themselves.
Keep in mind that the comic is an obvious silly hyperbole. The author intentionally put in a Sea Lion to leave the nature of the comment ambiguous.
The problem we arrive at when we discuss
"What deserves to be challenged" is extremely vague and so different from person to person that if you don't universally accept that
harassment itself is never warranted,
Usually regardless of how defendable a position is, arbitrary limits translate by
necessity to the loudest voice deciding the limit on what type of opinion "deserves/demands" challenge. The definition should be wide enough to
minimize harassment.
This means you accept that unfortunate or socially unacceptable voices are
allowed
to make remarks without concern trolls & mobs absolutely drowning out their ability to enjoy a social platform.
(Mind you that outright hate speech is inherently abusive and can therefore be rightfully reported. I'm not saying it should be tolerated.
If I write a tweet saying "Whites are innately racist", why am I posting it? Just to post my opinion? Why? Why there, where I know anyone could, and will, see it. You're posting your opinion on a public social media site because you want people to know. But why would I want people to not react? Why would I expect them not to?
You're giving a specific example that you wouldn't post yourself, so I'm not gonna discuss that position.
Regardless there are various reasons to post strong opinions:
1. To vent. (some people post tweets to 0 followers, after all.)
2. Maybe you think it's funny.
3. Trolling
4. To say something you know a large segment of your following agrees with.
5. Because you somehow feel it needs to be said.
6. Tweets
can be meant to be abusive. (these should be reported, not met with counter-abuse.)
7. Any other reason a person might want to say or write something.
The point is: It's toxic to expect someone to be
forced into dialogue in a public space or be disallowed their opinion entirely if they're not willing to engage on the subject. No matter how much you disagree their unwillingness to engage should be respected as a basic right.
The moment what they say clearly enters within the area of hate speech, illegality or abuse however, this should be rightfully counteracted by reporting them through the available means. (and blocking/muting them if it affects you.)
It should not be counteracted by mobbing, abusing, isolating or otherwise alienating the person in question.
----
For clarity I think everyone is absolutely allowed to talk about people's problematic behavior and bring it to light to their audience, but @ing someone constantly to forcefully include them within that criticism (especially en masse) can be extremely problematic regardless of how much you think "They deserve it."
