Subjectivity versus objectivity is the crux of the issue with standards of behaviour.
I understand a common idea nowadays is the subjective standard of any group member (victim) is considered paramount in assessing conduct. But this descends into meaninglessness because all people tolerate others' conduct at differing levels.
This is why the common law has long assessed standards of behaviour using the "reasonable person" as a hypothetical objective measure of appropriate conduct in the given circumstances.[1]
The commenter may not have the right to decide appropriate behaviour, but at some point we must ask "would the reasonable person in X situation presented with Y conduct be harmed?".