Let's back up to two core arguments. First, mine:

And the problem is, the language needs to change and the attitudes need to change but the people trying the hardest to champion usually end up being the ones being corrected the most because they're willing to put in the work.

Next, yours and the reason we're still having a disagreement:

It's the people who go out of their way to be loudly wrong about these issues who get their platform taken away, not those who are caught using the wrong pronouns or wrong words for things.

I've given you several examples now of how my business is facing consequences for championing minorities - not from those minorities, but from other members of the majority trying to score purity points by dunking on each other to win the Wokeness Sweepstakes.

You're bringing Dostoevsky into the mix.

in the abstract you're arguing for the justness of publicly attacking anyone who doesn't toe the purity line properly because if they're anywhere near it, it's because of opportunism and the world exists to tear down good people anyway. In the concrete I'm arguing that the tendency for woker-than-thous to attack anyone who doesn't abide by their terms of inclusion drives the fence-sitters in the opposite direction. You mention Lawrence Krauss, I mention the literal hundreds of hours I had to sink into this (after my second vacation in twenty years was skunked) in order to not suffer permanent professional damage.

Fundamentally? Discussions prior to the Internet were along the lines of "Hey I wish you wouldn't do that." Now those discussions are "Hey internet destroy this person for thinking mauve is lighter than magenta!"

And I know you want to feel okay with being angry at strangers on the Internet because other strangers on the internet tell you to?

But it's fucking corrosive.

That's my whole point.

No need to invoke Crime & Punishment, which I read 150 pages of before I decided that everyone that kept recommending Russian literature to me was an asshole.