In its own odd way, this thread has helped me understand the way some others make moral judgements and hence why they might've found the OP post distasteful. It is a hard type of thinking for me to get my head around, but hm, sort of..."this would be offensive to a lot of people -> majority opinion = evidence of wrong, bad person -> call out the person so he/she does not do harm to himself and others -> rejects my help -> bad person confirmed"?

But then again these seem like very flawed assumptions at every stage.

1. This would be offensive to a lot of people. So what? It is either offensive or not. However many people are likely to be offended is irrelevant.
2. If the number of people offended influences the gravity of the offence, then this could mean the person claiming injury wouldn't consider it wrong to abuse someone unlikely to receive sympathy in the eyes of others (hypocrisy -> values status more than truth)
3. How can you assume that a statement made in one context would be repeated exactly in another context (which might be less desirable)? Why not consider other possibilities like that the statement would never be repeated at all, or that it might be revised in some way? Even if the exact same situation was to occur, there's no reason to believe that the same sentiment would be repeated, in fact more likely than not it would be changed, just for sake of variety.
4. How can you assume that disagreement with your values equals immorality/ill intent? Again, there are so many other reasons that someone might disagree.

To me, it seems like "ugh disgusting IM OFFENDED ugh so creepy WEIRD ugh i bet ur a rapist" #MeToo *Facebook likes*