I don't disagree with the use of social pressure in general. Many people have mentioned the idea of refusing to allow children without vaccinations to attend public schools, which might be reasonable, and might be effective. That is social pressure, and I am not in principle opposed to it. However, I am opposed to the idea of stigmatizing anyone who disagrees with one's point of view, even if they are wrong, and even if it will promote a good cause. The problem with public shaming is that it works equally well for both good and bad arguments. A lot of sarcasm just implies that the object has already been established as absurd, the writer doesn't actually have to do anything to establish the fact. Since he doesn't have to make any argument that the object is absurd, it works just as well against any object at all. It can be very distorting, and emotionally twisting, and can be easily used to hide the truth in any discussion.

This is what I mean by 'emotivism', the idea that rationality is useless, and therefore the best way to establish one's moral beliefs is by use of assertion and emotional manipulation. Even if it is effective, and even if it can never be fully avoided, I don't feel comfortable using it, because as soon as it becomes an acceptable weapon in any sort of public debate, any hope of rationality is destroyed. And ultimately, that is more important even than the very serious issue of vaccinations.

For what it's worth, I don't think the blog post in question falls squarely into this description. He was making an argument by analogy rather than using sarcasm to imply that an argument already exists. This was just by way of response to the sentiment that social shaming is a tool that ought to be used.