> The "for no reason" part here is actually throwing me off. Not sure what you're implying.

It implies that Harvey Weinstein should be branded and ostracized. That abusers are rightfully alienated.

> I've made the statement that discussion on the topic is preferable to branding, even in the case where people feel alienated.

Right. You made that statement in response to 'What if your "controversial opinion" harasses and alienates other people?' -- so it follows that you're OK with giving airtime to hateful views even at the expense of chilling others' free speech and/or you don't recognize that this chilling effect is real.

Resisting your attempts to slide or conflate my statement with unrelated viewpoints.

My previous statement stands.

I responded to you words in their context: as a response to something I wrote. There is no conflation. "Discussion" as mentioned in your statement isn't as neutral as you think.