But this is the fundamental extreme response to which I was referring. It doesn't address the problem in any way other than "remove that which is offensive to me". This tends to trend exponentially towards groupthink, I've found, as the dominating group proceeds to wall themselves off. (Walling _themselves_ off would even be preferable, the current mindset is far more obliterating the opposition than isolating oneself from it, although I don't think either is necessarily "effective" int he long term)
It is a slippery slope when one starts enacting vengeance as a response to speech actions deemed unacceptable, the canonical questions being "who draws the line" and "what happens when the line moves under coercion from malicious entities". I aspire towards, as I said, a more measured approach.
Let me make my view perfectly clear; there is a level of harassment that becomes _material_ and is no longer simply a speech issue, but given your citing of FPH, I don't believe that's what is necessarily being discussed. (I also think that's a difficult instance to discuss, due to the frank level of "politicking" that's been involved in that whole situation, although that (the building of a self serving movement either for or against a social justice issue) is another potentially worrying bit of fallout from a "warlike" mindset and response (for lack of a better word). Aggressive action only polarizes further; and while I agree with your core point that social pressure is key, I think it must be well crafted.)