When I'm reading or writing within the framework of an MRM friendly, or at least MRM-aware audience, such as within r/mr I make some assumptions about the level of comprehension of the issues addressed by MRAs. Things I would take pains to explain in teeny-tiny steps to an outsider, starting from the moral principal of universality and moving along. By contrast, in /r/mr I expect a degree of understanding that this minute connecting of the dots isn't necessary. The opposition from within the MRM to publication of the names of individuals who had already self identified and indulged in open support for hatred and violence seems - to me (still) like purposeful tone trolling. It's playing pretend that such simple reporting of a public even and the public bragging of participation by those bad actors is, in somebody's imagination equivalent to issuing a threat, or actively promoting violence. Claims of this nature are to be expected from an uninformed, blue pill public, they're just nonsense coming from the MRM community who know better.

The article I've written at AVFM "to a stoic and patient man" provides the detailed reasoning, dialed down to baby steps for the public, should anyone be interested.