Amber Tamblyn argues that in these cases, redemption must be earned and that until that “line in the sand” is drawn, the punishments will continue as it has been. Meanwhile, Bret Stephens argues that these knee jerk reactions and punishments that many targets of the #MeToo movement suffers from not being proportional to the crime committed. Meanwhile, I can kinda see where both are coming from. I think that those one-size-fits-all punishments that we see now are necessary for the time being. That until even those smaller offenses that don’t normally go to court are now court liable, we should continue on our current path. Once it becomes normalized to not only talk about these offenses but persecute them as well, then we can start talking about proportional punishments. Both pieces also talk about redemption and both agree that redemption must be earned. The point that Stephens brings up is; is it right to punish people for a crime they are already penitent for? I don’t know.