"Shaming" denotes ridicule, sure, but is generally used to connote iniquity, i.e. that the one doing the "shaming" is wrong so to do. I think you're getting the pushback you are because you're using this word, with this connotation, to describe a deployment of ridicule whose degree of virtue seems less to you than to others, e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15578837.
Perhaps using other words might improve the light:heat ratio here. And even then the fact merits consideration that, in some cases, ridicule is earned.
Well I've said several times that he may deserved to be shamed.
> ridicule is earned
Your comment only emphasises part of what I've already said.
Of course however, he may not. A person who deploys the ridicule of a person's character (over said, the ridiculing of the idea that P=NP) is one who should be aware that this itself has moral downsides and is open to fair criticism.
Pretty sure Motl is being ridiculed for reasons other than not thinking it very unlikely that P=NP. The man seems to have earned a considerable degree of infamy through exactly the kind of behavior Aaronson calls out.
And I think you may too casually gloss over the point around connotations; a cursory review of the history of privilege rhetoric would suggest there's more substance there than might initially seem to be, and I think this case is parallel.
But isn't Scott's point that "he's an asshole but hear him out, he might have something interesting to say" isn't true because his arguments are intellectually dishonest? He's rejecting Luboš's claims based on a factual argument, garnished with a side of "that dude has issues", and not because he's an ass.
Perhaps using other words might improve the light:heat ratio here. And even then the fact merits consideration that, in some cases, ridicule is earned.