So your solution to diversity of beliefs is don't ask, don't tell?
One important aspect of what I described is that it requires an awareness of when one's beliefs are out of line with widely accepted positions. That awareness helps avoid pointless and unnecessary conflict, and may also cause one to reconsider the specifics of one's beliefs. Lacking that awareness is likely to lead to trouble.
When someone finds themselves defending child predators, it suggest that they are severely lacking in that kind of self-awareness. Social shaming in that situation is not unreasonable, and may help the person improve their understanding of how their beliefs fit into the world.
Or what child predator do you believe rms to be defending?
Of course, facts mean nothing to the mob. You see it here in this very thread (comments marking RMS as a "serial harasser" when that's pure fiction at best and malicious slander at worst).
The ideology and mental models behind cancel culture are so poisonous and hostile to open exchange of ideas that they need to be rooted out and vehemently exposed wherever encountered.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
Any social stigma based on such a premise is only a reflection of its insular beliefs - nay, delusions - held onto without examination or scrutiny. Shaming is the only the weapon left to people whose view of themselves and the world around them depends on the sanctity of an ideological house of cards. Reasonable people don't need hokum like shaming to defeat an argument. It's only necessary for the unreasonable. A society dependent on shaming is itself lacking in awareness. It can't hope to understand world beyond itself. Equating beliefs that please merely general society and with beliefs that fit into the world is a false premise. The world is a much bigger and unconventional place than most will accept.