Context is important. When it's not done with the intention to harass it isn't harassment. This wasn't done for fun, they're doing it because they want to try and encourage others to make these people into social outcasts. It's textbook cult behaviour and exactly the same thing religious types do to people who dump their religion.
Context is important...
So, you're wrong about what harassment is. That is part of the context of your argument.
Harassment is characterized by repetitive behavior. Also, the person doing the harassment can have no intention of upsetting or threatening you in any way for their behavior to be harassment.
If I call you once (and even if I say something extremely insulting) and never talk to you or see you again, that is not harassment.
If I call you 100 times in a single day, you answer the phone after call 2 and tell me not to call you again, whether my intention is to bother you or to just get you to talk to me because I love you, it's harassment.
...the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands.
It is commonly understood as behaviour intended to disturb or upset, and it is characteristically repetitive.
This act of people posting a picture of someone that they know and a snarky comment is no different than a tweet.
If one of your friends who hates fast food tweets a picture of you eating McDonald's and says "@Javik is eating something disgusting, what an idiot! #corporatemeat", is that person harassing you?
But, let's say you're right anyways, and see what that means:
So, what are you saying?!? Because context is important...
1) Are you saying that this group of vegan extremists are shaming and "harassing" all ex-vegans that anyone wants to post to their site in order to shame the relatively non-existent few ex-members of this one particular extremist group?
2) Are you saying that all vegans are in a "cult-like" group, and this is an extremist group that is trying to shame and harass all ex-vegans back into the "cult-like" group?
Let's assume the first:
That doesn't make sense... (If this is what you're saying, please do explain how that makes sense).
Let's assume the second:
Let's put this argument in context:
If being in a group that harasses ex-members is enough for you to say that the group is "cult-like", then you're willing to attach a connotation to any group, such as that they are like a cult ("cult-like"), based upon a single generic behavior that is prone to many non-related groups. If you're willing to take a generic behavior that applies to one group, and say that another group is like that group because they share that one generic behavior, you end up with situations that are ridiculous and absurd, just like this, and just like these:
A football team is a "homosexual-like" group because they get on top of each other and smack each other on the butt when they do a good job.
Conspiracy theorists are a "presidential-like" group because they're both interested in current events and the state of the country.
Police are "nazi-like" because they both wear uniforms and are strict.
A "textbook" definition of a cult:
A Primer on Cults and Ideologically Extremist Groups
This primer explores the question "What is a cult?" and attempts to explain some of these behaviors that may often seem incomprehensible.
What are cults, and how do they work? A useful definition of a cult builds on the work of Lifton, Singer, Arendt and others and encompasses the following five points:
• The group is led by a charismatic and authoritarian leader
• It has a closed, steeply hierarchical inner structure
• The group adheres to an exclusive or total belief system
• Processes of coercive persuasion (or brainwashing) are used to retain followers
• Followers are exploited
The inner structure of a cult is closed, and steeply hierarchical. At the top sits the leader whose every whim must be obeyed. Followers must renounce ties to outsiders - unless they can be recruited or used in some way. Yet within the group itself, belying the stereotype of close "community" that exists within cults, followers are, in important ways, isolated from each other, allowed to communicate only within the narrow confines of the group's belief system.
Can you come up with at least three known similarities between this group and a definition of a cult? Even if you can, does that mean that they are "cult-like"?
Based upon the definition above, many types of groups have at least three characteristics of a cult, but I still think it would be absurd to genuinely believe that they are actually literally like a cult.
A Football Team
A Baseball Team
So much for being "ethical", it's just another cult.
If you'd simply said that you were kidding, and didn't really mean it literally, like jokingly calling someone who's strict a Nazi, I would've totally understood.
Continuing to argue the point, you've shown that you actually believe that they are a cult, just like you said.
It's like when someone says, "Boy, our boss is a Nazi". Someone else laughs and says, "He's not a Nazi", and the other person starts arguing that because their boss is strict he is literally like a Nazi.
It's really one of the most absurd and ridiculous arguments I've ever heard or read, and I'm sort of embarrassed to be a participant . It's one of those times when what the other person is saying is so absurd you're sure they must be joking, but they aren't, and then you never take them seriously again.