I have not even bothered to look at any of Stephan Molyneux's stuff for years because he appears to be driven by ego. Some of stuff is ok and valid but his strategies are crap.
Anyway, we could apply your argument to a situation where I am in contact with person who is emotionally and physically violent to women and children. So I am in a violent situation where I deliver a blow to that person they fall to the ground so i drag the to a doorway and start to slam the door on this persons head between the door and frame around the door way. I may feel dominant and even 'righteous' but I m just a thug at that point. If I employ shaming, it will lock that person into the pattern they are in and I am still a thug.
Of course, but this isn't quite correct:
It's not about whether one feels righteous but whether one really is. Someone doing all the things you say above obviously isn't.
You have to make sure that you are on solid ethical ground and shame ideally isn't caused by accusation (as in public shaming), but by the realization of wrongdoing which can happen in multiple ways when the truth is exposed.