It seems that some people are keen to use disfellowshipping as the measure of anything bad. If someone is deleted from a forum for being obnoxious then that is akin to being disfellowshipped and is B-A-D. yada yada yada.
Is it?
Is every disfellowshipping "bad" simply by virtue of being a disfellowshipping?
Haven't people made quite a fuss (and rightly so) over the fact that the WTS has NOT kicked people out that *we* think that they should? Hey, sometimes, some disfellowshippings are DAMN justified and a DAMN good thing. People have campaigned long and hard because the WTS have not d'fd people when they should have been!
What is wrong with the WTS d'f policy is when they use disfellowshipping to wield power and then abuse that power by breaking up families and hurting people who have not done anything wrong or broken any rules.
Really, the whole "you deleted 'xyz' and that is like the WTS disfellowshipping people" is a bit tired and frankly sickening. It is an "obvious" (in a simplistic way) but very ill-thought-through analogy that doesn't work on two counts:
Sometimes, people SHOULD be disfellowshipped because of their behaviour - that is something that we have argued long and hard for isn't it?. There are some rules that shouldn't be broken without consequences and that should result in expulsion if they are. The rules are well known, and well accepted by decent society in general.
Deleting someone from a forum is nothing like disfellowshipping. It does not approach the hurt caused by d'fing and doesn't prevent families, relatives and friends from communicating or having contact with anyone. It is an INSULT to people who have genuinely suffered hurt because of the WTS d'fing policy to equate their loss to some pratt not being allowed to post on one single internet site out of millions simply because of their own stubborn refusal to adhere to simple rules and polite requests.
So no, disfellowshipping is not always bad IMO. I'm sure some will see everything in black and white terms and disagree though.