I agree that Paul's injunction was to treat those expelled from the fellowship as a man of the nations. Since we're not to abuse strangers, the current practice among Jehovah's Witnesses is in some respects extra-Biblical. I never saw shunning as anything but my personal choice, which isn't "recomended" behavior, but was and is how I act.
That said, I can't think of many who weren't disfellowshipped for good cause. Without the biblical injuctions, I still wouldn't speak to most of them. Forcing someone to speak to us who detests what we stand for is a form of self-justification and abuse of our fellows. It's morally wrong. But then, for some, neither morals nor human rights matter.
Another factor here is that many who are disfellowshipped take up "an apostate stance." Many of the claims made are without foundation, especially those based on 'history.' That's one of the reasons i continue to recommend Schulz and de Vienne's books.
Is the Watchtower abusive? Yes. The powers that be are a self-entitled bunch who see themselves as a sort of collective pope. They know in their heart of hearts that they only control people by intimidation and by mis-defining the faithful slave as a prophetic body instead of the mere illustration Jesus intended. You see this in the current donation arragement letter if you read it carefully.
I reiterate that most here are here because they chose not to live by the standards Witnesses accept. Most here came to the so-called truth about the truth late, and many of them belive any negative claim uncritcally because their feelings are hurt and they want to strike back and feel in some way justified. That's not an uncommon reaction to being caught with your hand in the cookie jar. But it is immature.
If you wish to compel other to talk to you, how do you differ from the Watchtower which also uses compulsion in place of Bible teaching?