The classical &quot;they&#x27;ve done worse&quot; retort. I&#x27;ll let you in on a little secret:<p>Two wrongs don&#x27;t make a right.<p>The internet is rife with tu quoque. Even, if in the specific case of Hunt and his bigotry, death threats were not made against him it does not mean that this has been the case of all similar internet arguments.<p>&gt; Does it include people who post &quot;I thing Hunt&#x27;s comment was sexist&quot;?<p>No. Just like Hunt is free to be bigoted&#x2F;racist&#x2F;sexist, so are people allowed to have opinions about him: <i>so long as those opinions are not designed in such a way to disrupt his personal life or in any way limit his own rights.</i><p>&gt; Does it include people who say &quot;I do not think we should invite Hunt for our next &#x27;Women in Science&#x27; conference&quot;?<p>No, so long as Hunt has the right to have his own &#x27;Men in Science&#x27; conference without being picketed&#x2F;harassed or what-have-you.<p>&gt; &gt; Other female scientists who spoke out had apparently also received death threats.<p>Much of that paragraph contains content that I would take the man to court over. The objective and irrefutable conclusion is that he actively limited the rights of those female scientists and that behavior is unconstitutional, inhumane and needs to be corrected.<p>However, &quot;writing a blog post&quot; and the best-case-scenario examples that you cherry-picked are a far cry from what &quot;shame mobs&quot; do on the internet. Indeed, if you believe that mob (of any kind) would resort to such rational and sensible measures then you simply do not know what a mob actually is - it&#x27;s not a group of people that simply disagree with another group of people.