I think taking responsibility for everything whether or not you caused in is exactly what heroic responsibility is about.

Apart from that Scotts get's a lot in the article wrong. In particular Scott argues:

The men in the street video are presumably repeat offenders. And that means they are getting a reward, at least occasionally, from their shouted public compliments. And I assume the reward comes from the occasional women who appreciate the compliments and smile back.

That's a naive view. It's probably wrong.

To the extend that Eliezer argues "Do the impossible" he doesn't argue doing things that literally have 0% of success. TDT discourages doing things with 0% of success. Eliezer doesn't argue virtue ethics where it matters that you try regardless of whether you succeed.

Not stopping with a naive view and actually working on the problem is something that Eliezer advocates and that's useful in cases like this. Even if it leads to questions that are even more politically incorrect then the ones Scott is asking.