It is the same conceptual framework that allows us to think of slitting throats and gassing animals to death as somehow not "violence." But might a world in which 70 billion animals are killed annually for food - over 100,000 per minute - while barely anyone bats an eye, be a little crazier than a person getting upset about it? Should we not be more concerned about our reflex to condemn someone who cares about these animals enough to speak up, than we are about the caring and speaking up itself? Shouldn't the response to Atlas' protest, which includes comments such as, "go away, woman, before we barbecue you," and "get between me and cooked meat, and I'll show you some violence," concern us more than her emotionality?
In short, don't we want a world in which care and compassion for all is the norm and violence and threats of violence against anyone, not efforts, even emotional ones, to stop it, are socially unacceptable?
Much of the press coverage of Atlas' protest complained that she "interrupt[ed] everyone's lunch." Are we really so insensitive, so engrossed in our chicken salad, that we cannot permit ourselves to hear a little emotion expressed on behalf of lives that have been much more brutally interrupted?