I can see the nuance you read in the way I wrote it, you're right. Let me explain better.
I'm worried about what I call Internet Morality Hordes, and I think that's a very complex issue. Anytime you criticize this phenomenon (which is important to do, like with everything) there's a flurry of things you can be accused of by the Court of The People of The Internet: victim blaming; not being able to recognize your mistakes; involuntary sexism/racism; inability to recognize your own privilege.
Now, the problem is that all these accusations can be right in some cases. What we see is that the morality hordes tend to flip the tables the opposite way, and they use this accusation to condemn anyone based often on the victim's report. Saying that an accusation of a victim of anything should be carefully waged before taking it for granted (as it should be in a society that lives by the rule of law) you can be accused of defending the alleged perpetrator, and so on. You dare say the victim should explain better what happened? Monster! You've never hit a woman, but you have conservative views about marriage? Bigot! Just to clarify: my views are full-on progressive, pro-LGBTQ (I'm part of that), and mostly socialist-leaning. Yet I want a world where my conservative neighbor can argue for its view of the world in a democratic way, trough debate and peaceful confrontation.
That's not what the hordes want.
Back to the D'Silva story. The guy who's writing the story started doing exactly what I describe, strategically framing the discourse the right way. Then boom, he quotes one of the more controversial, misogynistic, "cancel culture will kill us all" assholes you can find on Twitter. Someone who's exactly the perfect explainer of how, in this day and age, you should NOT talk about the issues he raises.
I want to live in a world where people like Scott Adams are free to say things that I consider to be bullshit. But I also know that we live in a world where, if you want to bring your point across in a productive way about this issues, you don't quote someone backward-thinking like Scott Adams.
Therefore: he got me until he quoted Scott Adams.
Sorry if this all sounds a bit confusing, it's a complex issue I'm still trying to wrap my head around.
I also want to point out that nobody deserves Internet Mob Attacks, whether they are guilty of what they were accused of or not. Just don't quote friggin' Scott Adams.