I imagine there is more than an element of bet-hedging going on but I don’t think it’s an unfair appraisal of the situation.
Objectively, Susie Verrill’s comments are callous, childish and bigoted in exactly the thoughtless, babyish way that people who’ve not thought about an issue for more than 5 minutes can be.
It’s also true that some time has passed since she said anything in that vein, which means not only is it possible she’d regard those tweets with (genuine) horror and embarrassment now, but it also means that there have been colossal changes in a) what kind of “humour” (I use the term loosely...) people are prepared to overlook on social media and b) how we collectively punish people for their transgressions. There is, after all, a reason that those tweets have sat there for over half a decade unshared and (I assume) unremarked upon, and it isn’t because they were fastened away in some digital tomb that has only just been prized open for the masses.
It’s also IMO tempting but ultimately often unfair to judge people for their immediate, knee jerk response to being Found Out, because for almost everyone in this position, whether they are someone who did nothing wrong and are being targetted unfairly, a sweetheart who made a silly mistake or a genuine arsehole whose cover has been blown, the overwhelming initial reaction to this kind of thing kicking off is panic, and people often do and say strange and dumb and unhelpful things when they panic (or of course they say nothing at all).
Considering this has all only just happened and it hasn’t had all that long to marinate for anyone involved, I don’t think it’s completely unreasonable to give someone a chance to get their bearings and give a more considered response/apology before they’re written off. It’s also probably less destructive to choose not to name someone before the gloves are well and truly off, because doing so only ends up sending more pitchfork-wielding strangers to their virtual door.
I have no particular time for SV, I only followed her briefly a while ago, and I’d be lying if I said some of her old tweets didn’t give me a rush of rage or make me do a sharp intake of breath.
But still, while I recognise that the current way of doing things effectively forces people to denounce someone who has done something bad (or at least remark that what they did WAS bad) — because silence is now understood to be either apathy or covert support — I do still question what ultimately is gained from fruiting people in the stocks for 7 year old tweets. Just because the person in the stocks is an arsehole, and just because the fruiting is done nominally in the name of progressive values doesn’t mean that it is functionally useful, and doesn’t mean that it doesn’t ultimately rely on the same base instincts that had us strapping people to ducking stools a few hundred years ago.