"It is impractical because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind."
Or maybe a good place for someone with knowledge to show why it's a bad idea and what the arguments are that have been struggled with.
One person getting irked because another happily destroys reputation without any consequence is natural. Reputation is too important.
A single person wanting to see consequence does not create a mob that firebombs their offices.
An idea has to start somewhere.
But that doesn't mean we should outlaw speech... Because speech leads to good things a lot more often than firebombing mobs.
Those people we can put in jail. Only those.
The rest are helpful or neutral, even if you don't agree with them. Democracy (in any form) grows stronger with dissent/speech.
Seeing a situation where one person/group does something that negatively affects another group without consequence tends to have this emotional response from emotionally healthy individuals.
Where do you see a problem with this type of response?