She is a journalist/writer and wrote about her own views on the MeToo movement. She's paid to have opinions and write about them. People then started using her views as ammo to target her husband's business as a way to inflict collateral damage in her life. This is a pretty dirty way to say you disagree with a writer.

>People then started using her views as ammo to target her husband's business as a way to inflict collateral damage in her life. This is a pretty dirty way to say you disagree with a writer.

This is not new. Side channel attacks like this are how people and organizations with power make the lives of "inconvenient" people they don't like miserable. If you're the reporter constantly covering police brutality don't expect anyone who shares your address to ever get a warning from the police. If you're the guy who blew the whistle on some BS going on in state government expect your brother's restaurant to be much more scrutinized by the health department. Making people who are inconvenient miserable by putting pressure on the people around them is not something new.

What is new is that now any one member of masses who can craft a compelling narrative (aka something that goes "viral") can harness the power of internet lynch mobs to make people miserable. Suddenly this power that a few had is potentially in everyone's hands and it's a Bad Thing(TM).

I really don't like internet lynch mobs but they are just a product of technology giving everybody the power to try to rally people to a less than just cause. It will blow over. Social norms will adjust to make this sort of thing (screwing people for association with people who you find inconvenient) not acceptable or at least not as acceptable to do to this extent. Give it time.

Well, to her defense, I still believe there's a difference between voicing an opinion and being offended.

Being offended is having an opinion everyone should wholeheartedly agree with: reserves are offenses in themselves. Offering an opinion do not mean that, it is still open to discussion. I don't see the problem with the latter, but I do think that many of today's "offenses" should be requalified as opinions, over which one should have the "right" to disagree.

To be fair, the business was her husband's, not hers. he didn't publish any controversial opinions - she did.

having said that, baristas quit? hire new ones, sorry, I am not feeling the outrage regarding this outrage.

It’s going after the wholesale customers that did the trick. Lots of those must be catering to the SJW demographic. Easy target.

He should turn it around and go all MAGA. Some rebranding and you have a true red blooded American coffee ;) with wife as journalist they can probably spin it into a decent speaking gig too.

In current America you are either MAGA/fascist/sexist/whateverist or you are SJW/commie no other choices.

or you don't spout your useless political opinions that nobody cares about and you are just a regular citizen

Yeah, I see now i misread that!

Did you read the article? It wasn't the person with 15-year-old business publishing those opinions.

She gave her opinion, but what she received wasn't another opinion, it was a reckless siege against his husband's business. I don't think I understand what your point is. It's not symmetrical at all.

Her husband's business, not her's, but otherwise i agree.