By saying that they're "next to the KKK", you're marking your opposition as not only immoral, but beyond reprieve. If you're willing to simplify the moral landscape to a single line onto which you've placed yourself squarely at the "good" end, you're taking a gravely irresponsible logical shortcut.

EDIT: I foolishly used 'retribution' in place of 'reprieve', thus making my above comment confusing and nonsensical.

Can you elaborate on that? Several prominent racists of the KKK era, including people like Robert Byrd and George Wallace, ultimately renounced their earlier views. Eich is free to do the same whenever he wants. He has not, as far as I'm aware.

So, what makes an argument legitimate? In order for one to suggest that there is no legitimate argument against gay marriage, you'd have to rationalize what it is that we in the west know better than those living in less-wealthy, less-industrialized societies outside our corner of the globe.

Using that as a rulestick, no one will be negatively impacted by homosexuals getting married. Studies have been done, plenty of places around the globe have tried it with no negative consequences. The courts agree. There's no government interest in preventing gay marriage.

Most of those other societies incorporate substantial religious influence in their legislative and/or judicial processes. It doesn't require "rationalization" to demonstrate that this is harmful to human progress.

EDIT: Apparently that's a little contentious -- only 47% self-declared atheist (http://redcresearch.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/RED-C-pres...), but given that 9% of those surveyed did not respond to the question, the majority of respondents to this specific survey question did self-proclaim themselves as atheists.

Even today -- decades after the state/social pressures against religious affiliation disappeared -- most former soviet states still have very large atheist populations.

Would you be opposed to pregnant women taking this drug?

Clearly, you do interpret her statement to be an offensive, racist remark, but by her own admission, she instead was commenting on how "[l]iving in America puts us in a bit of a bubble when it comes to what is going on in the third world. I was making fun of that bubble."

Whether or not her explanation for the off-color is truly genuine is up for debate, but scuttling somebody's life and career for something that only might have been a racist remark doesn't seem all that fair to me and (it would appear) a significant fraction of commenters here.

However, it's pretty easy to see how it could be considered a racist and bigoted tweet and I'd expect her to have realised this before sending it.

EDIT: I totally agree that scuttling someones life on career off the back of one tweet is unfair - I 100% agree with that. As I said in the original comment, the bullying she experienced was totally unfair.

I don't believe, however, that her career is ruined by it - evidenced by the fact that she's now gainfully employed. I think it's definitely a red flag on her resume but by doing volunteer service after the fact I'd be surprised if any company wouldn't see this as "I did something dumb, I learnt and grew from it".

Professionals in PR should naturally be extra-vigilant about issues like these.

given that, as she said in the article, "only an insane person would think that white people can't get AIDS", and the phrasing is obviously comic (dour opening, sudden & glib reversal, edgy punchline), I literally cannot read the tweet as bigoted or racist. Is the joke off-color? yes. Is it obviously self-deprecating, and aware of the fucked-up-ed-ness of white & first-world privilege? yes.

^Agreed but Louis CK is a world famous comedian. When he speaks I know to take most of what he says in jest. Theres a context I can apply when he speaks.

A counterpoint to this would be that she had a small following on Twitter, most of whom she may know in real life, who likely know that she was joking. They can apply a similar context because of their relationship with her.

However, I would expect her to know that people will be able to read a tweet without that context - thus taking it out of context - and reacting accordingly.

I literally cannot read the tweet as bigoted or racist

^And that's okay. I see it differently. We all take different understandings of things. The tweeter should have considered this when posting the tweet.

I find it hard to accept this. I've offended people, unintentionally. Heck, there are still a few times that to this day I don't understand why the person was offended (I mostly do understand when they explain themselves).

We are human; I don't think it is reasonable to parse everything 140 characters that ever leaves our mouths or fingers and correctly predict how any/every person in the world might possible interpret it.

I mean, do you know anyone, ever, that has never offended somebody? It seems like an impossible standard. People shouldn't brake to late and rear end somebody at a stop light. People shouldn't ski too fast on a ski slope and fall. They shouldn't trip and fall. They shouldn't talk over somebody during a conversation. But we do them, now and again.

I loathe posting in conversations like this because it is almost inevitable that someone somewhere will misconstrue what I am saying. "Look, Roger is sticking up for racist posting!" Uh, no, anything but, but someone somewhere is going to say that. I'll probably get lucky and that won't develop into a Twitterstorm, but who knows? A good part of me says just delete this and don't hit reply.

But I don't want to live in that kind of world of perfect expectations. I'm going to try hard to express myself well, but you (you=public, not you the poster I'm replying to) have to understand that modelling the minds of others is a difficult and mistake ridden field.

That's why I'm happy to see post-mob coverage of stories like this one, and some of the Reddit mob-justice-gone-wrong situations.

2) I got the impression that this was a personal account, meaning I'd judge it based on what stupid shit I hear people say in bars or other social/personal situations. I know plenty of people who have said way worse things, and continue to.

At some point in life we all realize that we're not as funny as Steven Colbert, we're not as good looking as Brad Pitt, etc, etc. When you come to that realization, learn your limits and don't try to pull off a racist joke or wear a speedo to the beach. It's unfortunate that she had to learn this lesson in such a painful and public way. She was clearly in the wrong, but I don't agree that mob justice fits the crime.