Liberals, please stop allowing Authoritarians to hijack the Left.

Nintendo Switch

ESRB rating: Early Childhood (EC)
#1
What does it mean to be a Liberal?


Open-mindedness & Empathy: The fundamental value of liberalism is the belief in open-mindedness that - All adults have the right to live as they choose and do what they want, as long as they are not taking advantage of or violating the rights of others. Adherence to this single principle defines all liberal philosophy. This principle is why liberals were decades ahead of everyone else in being open to things such as civil rights, sex outside of marriage, interracial marriages, marijuana, marriage equality, transgendered lifestyles, foreign cultures, and pretty much anything that two consenting adults want to do to each other in the privacy of their own bedroom.

For an alternative definition, here is a well sourced quote from Wikipedia defining liberalism. “Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality and international cooperation.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10]” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

These fundamental beliefs that define liberalism are so innately appealing that when actual liberalism is openly expressed and championed, it wins the majority of people over to the side of liberalism.


What authoritarians miss is that these same values also mean that people be allowed to think and say what they want without being bullied, harassed, doxed or threatened. Freedom of thought, freedom of expression and the right to privacy are also liberal principles that stem from the maxim that: “All adults have the right to live as they choose and do what they want, as long as they are not taking advantage of or violating the rights of others.”

If someone is wrong, biased, or holds homophobic, racist, sexist or transphobic beliefs, do your best to educate them as to why their opinion is misguided. Harassing them or trying to get them banned from the discussion means that you abandoned the very values you are espousing in order to sink to their level. In doing so, not only are you undermining your own argument, you are undermining liberalism altogether.


Liberals take pride in the notion: “I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will defend, with my life if neccessary, your right to say it.” Liberals actually took pride in the fact that as detestable as the Westboro Baptist Church’s messages were, liberals held their principles, especially our first amendment to a higher standard. However the newest generation of authoritarian leftists seem to have zero respect for or appreciation of, or the importance of our freedom of expression in preventing tyranny and facilitating liberty. This freedom is never to be traded away for anything, much less for the sake of something so shallow as to avoid hearing uncomfortable things.


Equally important is the maxim that KarneeKarney brought up that best encapsulates Empathy - "Never attribute to malice, that which could be caused by ignorance." Authoritarians are far too quick to see the worst in every misstatement or poorly phrased quote. A reporter posted that he feels especially heartbroken about the kids that were shot yesterday because they were such good intelligent students, and immediately the authoritarians on resetera leaped to the most malicious conclusion that the reporter is racist and clearly doesn't think all children's lives are valuable, rather than take it as the poorly phrased misstatement that it was.


What do you mean Authoritarians are hijacking the left?


Below are the four quadrants of political ideology:


Of these four, the Liberal Left quadrant is the only one that is driven purely by open mindedness and empathy towards even those that do not share their lifestyle, culture or beliefs. Meanwhile, authoritarianism on both the right and the left is driven by the desire to bully, dominate and subjugate anyone that does not share their worldview.


The GOP fall into the Authoritarian Right. Unfortunately, the Authoritarian Left while they may agree with the goals of democrats eagerly engage in the same strategies of the authoritarian right by engaging in thought policing, doxxing, harassing, black and white thinking, and attacking freedom of speech on campuses. These authoritarians have hijacked the Liberal moniker but they absolutely do not share their principles.


To be biased is to be human. Every single adult on this planet has some innate biases that formed as a result of happenstance. To be liberal is to have empathy, you have to do the work of figuring out why someone said what they said, or did what they did. And if the only explanation you can come up with is that you think they are evil, then you failed. Empathy requires that you understand the complex multitiered reasons that led to these biases. It requires that you not dismiss biased people as evil or irredeemable but that you instead figure out how best to provide context and challenge their prejudices. Most modern liberal culture has utterly failed at this. The internet instead rewards simplistic black and white hot takes and admonations of anyone that says something you disagree with. Those that try to actually try to put themselves in the shoes of people they disagree with and try to explain why they may have acted this way are dismissed by the left as sympathizers or as -ists themselves, ganged up on and blocked or banned from conversation. And this is precisely why the modern left are utterly failing in their efforts to prevent society from regressing.


True liberals, classical liberals, advocate for empathy even for those that say and do things they do not condone. They champion open communications, freedom of expression, nuance and they fight against black and white thinking. Liberals do not assume the worst in people, authoritarians do. Authoritarians resort to vague generalizations like White Privilage to attack anyone that doesn’t share their views. Authoritarians blanketly attack with biased beliefs as racists and drive them away Liberals should always attempt to figure out why people with biases believe what they do, and attempt to change their minds with examples that provide context, challenge these prejudices and win them over to their side. That how Gandhi did it, that’s how MLK did it, and that’s the only damn hope we have of ensuring that another man like Trump doesn’t rise to power.


Authoritarians however have no problems engaging in biases of their own. They militantly ban colleges from having guest speakers that disagree with their worldview and refuse to confront of acknowledge their own biases. Authoritarians do not see any irony or hypocrisy in prejudging an entire group based on the actions of some. They openly hate on all police officers, many hate on all members of the military and accuse all white people of white privilege and anyone that disagrees with them is a racist. If they instead tried to better understand why the bad actors behave the way they do, they could productively contribute to improving these institutions. They are happy to attribute racism as the sole explanation for law enforcement failures and are all too happy to say that all cops are evil instead of acknowledging the role that fear of life and limb, gun culture where many civilians are armed to the teeth, and inadequate training are likely contributors as well. If they stopped focusing so much energy on labeling an entire large swatch of people as evil, if they instead channeled that energy into advocating for productive reforms such as universal body cams, better training and zero tolerance for racism or corruption policies, they could actual make a difference instead of push people away from their cause. But instead, they are all too happy to attack the entire group with hateful accusations for the actions of some of it’s members.


Liberals need to openly and consistently reject authoritarian means and open the views of authoritarians on the left and show them that their actions are doing more harm than good. Liberals need to reclaim the high ground before their name gets even more dragged through the mud by the authoritarian Left that do not value freedom of expression, the right to privacy or freedom of thought. Empathy towards even those we disagree with is the only path towards changing minds and making progress.


How do liberals advance society?


By promoting free and open discussion so that people can become better informed. The hope is to have this site be such a site with lots of actual discussion between people with very different beliefs. It should not be a toxic safe space bubble like teh_donald or /pol/ or freer/stormf filled with “snowflakes” as they like to say that can’t handle any opinion that resides outside of their racist and antisemetic conspiracies.

On those sites, anyone that points out or challenges bigotry or racism immediately gets perma-banned, because the people on teh_donald and /pol/ are “beta cuck snowflake pussies” as they like to say, to be able to handle actual debate. When they leave those safe places to come to a place like here, they are going to be allowed to speak but they are going have their idiocy challenged and undermined.


Yes there are some bigoted trolls from those sites actively launching futile attempts to overwhelm sites like this with 8chan antisemetic conspiracy theories but that’s the price of free and open discussions, some will try to abuse it. As long as everyone else gets smart about this and stays vigilant in standing against them and pointing out their bigotry and idiocy, there’s only so much the 8chan trolls and antisemetic conspiracy nuts can do, even with unhindered freedom of speech.


Mahatma Gandhi proved that the most effective way to achieve liberal goals is not by banning those who oppose you from the discussion. It is by including them in the discussion and showing them they are wrong. Even if they never come around to realizing that they are wrong, everyone else watching in the rest of the world will come to see that they are in the wrong and that you are correct. This is how Gandhi turned the entire world against the British empire and forced Britain to decolonize the world, he showed the world that the people they are oppressing are not savages, and he showed the world that the British people were committing unprovoked atrocities against these people. Gandhi did this by practicing nonviolence, advocating for productive reforms, rejecting the human instinct to generalize and instead showing those with biases examples that go against their biased beliefs and opening their eyes so that at least some of their former enemies actually switch sides and become your allies. Gandhi consistently maintained that no one is beyond redemption, anyone can have their mind changed through this approach given enough time. And Martin Luther King Jr. referred to Gandhi as ''the guiding light of our technique of nonviolent social change” and credits this approach for achieving civil rights.


One important tool that a liberal must possess if they actually want to win people over to their side is to gain the empathic understanding that not all biases are racist. Not everyone that disagrees with them is a racist/sexist/bigot/nazi. Racism comes from a place of hate and resentment. Bias is a product of incomplete information, emotional reasoning and societal conditioning, and it can be reversed with engagement and education. Conflating bias with hatred doesn't do anyone any good. And it's also extremely dishonest because there is not a single person on the planet that can honestly claim to be free of biases.


For example, if someone makes a transphobic statement, it is usually not because they are a hateful bigot, it's because they have incomplete information about it and the idea challenges their childhood social conditioning. This is exacerbated by the fact that transphobia is a relatively new openly discussed topic, so more people are likely to be conditioned against it or have incomplete or incorrect information about it. It comes from a place of misinformation and lack of understanding, not hate. Most people here are far too quick to instantly personally attack such a poster, call them all sorts of names and demanding that they be banned rather than engaging with them to try to explain why their views on transgender people are incorrect. Such people are not liberals that have an open mind and empathy, they are authoritarians that prefer to bully those they disagree with into submission rather than engage them in conversation


When the rest of the world saw homosexuality as a mental illness and transgender people as perverts, it was conservatives that resorted to name calling (using terms like perverts, deviants and sickos) and liberals that empathized with people with a different perspective and lifestyle and stood alongside and advocated for the right of all people to live how they want and marry who they want.


Dismissing those that act or say things that you disagree using hateful labels, shutting down conversations with them and trying to prevent them from being allowed to speak, banning them from discussions, trying to get them fired even if they did nothing illegal, sharing their personal details publicly in order to unleash the internet army to inundate them with harassing calls and death threats is NEVER acceptable. Period. And if you think it is, if you think the ends justify the means, then you are not a liberal, you are an authoritarian. You are trying to bully those that disagree with you into submission and this method simply does not work, it actually creates a strong backlash. All you are doing is actively helping the right undermine the left.


When someone espouses biased statements, engage them in open dialogue, educate them as to why they are wrong. Prove them wrong. Don’t take the shortcut of harassing them, banning them from the discussion outright, or doxxing them and then pat yourself on the back as if you achieved a win against racism. You didn’t, just the opposite.






Why is it so important to stop the Authoritarian Left?


Racism slowly dies when open discussion between people of different backgrounds and ideologies thrives. Racism thrives when freedoms dies and thought bubbles are formed.


For hundreds of years our society has steadily and progressively become less racist and less sexist with each passing generation but something switched a decade ago that led to the trend coming to a halt or possibly even going backwards. I posit that this new factor is social media, not only in its facilitation of right wing bubbles, but in it’s empowering of authoritarian left bubbles to freely harass and attack anyone that doesn’t share all of their views.


The authoritarian right had already sheltered itself into bubbles since open racism was no longer culturally tolerated. However it was the authoritarian left that hijacked the liberal moniker and engaged in thought policing and doxxing and closed discussion (even though freedom of expression and freedom of thought are integral to real liberalism) that pushed liberal circles into authoritarian left wing thought bubbles that drove centrists out as is being done all over the internet, including this site. This created the backlash to the left in general that is contributing to the decline of progressive thought and race relations.


If liberalism falls to the authoritarian left, then the principles of liberty and equality for all (championed by the left, enshrined in the US Constitution and fundamental to the existence of any democracy) will fall with it. I think Trump is a horrible person that should have never been president. But the Authoritarian Left is an utter failure in challenging him, because they are transparently seen by everyone as hypocrites that only advocate for freedom and equality when it’s for things they agree with and they become just like Trump when it comes to how they treat those they disagree with.

You will not beat Trump by sinking to his level. You will only beat him if you are consistent in championing liberty and freedom for all, even those you disagree with. Only after you oust the authoritian left that hijacked your label are you going to be able to win back the support of the center and oust the authoritarian right from power.

The Authoritarian Right is definitely scarier right now. At the moment, they have had a resurgence and now control all three branches of government and are doing the kinds of shit that authoritarians do when in power: Dividing people, scapegoating groups (minorities in the case of the right) and acting to force those they disagree with into submission by...

Trying to ban transgendered people from the military

Kicking out immigrants, even those brought here as kids

Scapegoating an entire religion practiced by 2 billion people based on the actions of less than 1% and advocating a ban of Muslim immigrants from entering the US

Scapegoating minorties and the poor and dismantling the social safety net

Raping and pillaging the environment

Taking control of the Supreme Court so that they can get gay marriage banned again and can force women to keep and grow a fetus inside their body for 9 months


The biggest problem with the authoritarian left is that they have succeeded in hijacking the left liberal monikers over the past many years, transparently adopted hypocritical views that are in contrast to actual liberalism and doubly succeeded in repelling many moderates away from the Democratic Party so that the authoritarian right could rise to power.


Examples of left wing bubbles where the authoritarian left took control and drove out the moderates and even drove out actual liberals are rampant. Both old gaf and resetera are good examples of how left wing bubbles form. It begins slowly. First, the people who express nonleft views points or defend conservatives are attacked by left authoritarians and then when they try to explain their perspective, they are outright banned. This pushes the forum in a slightly more authoritarian left direction. Then people that expressed views that didn't confirm to this lefter ideology are again dogpiled on then banned. With each banning the forum becomes more and more of authoritarian bubble where anyone that expresses any views that challenge this bubble are either banned or rendered afraid to post their perspective.


And subsequently anyone that pointed out there is a bubble now we're again dogpiled on then banned. And in pushing these people out or dog piling on them with one word insults and accusations instead of taking the time to empathetize with and convincingly challenge their viewpoint, you convey the false impression that liberalism does not respect freedom of expression and is a form of fascism and you drive them to the right.


A real liberal would be considerate of the fact that people have different perspectives, views and biases and would try to engage with them and educate them rather than attacking them and asking for them to be banned.


Liberals do not believe in thought policing, or name calling. They believe in trying to understand other people's perspectives, open conversation and discourse.


The authoritarian left do share some of the same goals as liberals but they absolutely do not share liberal ideals. They are loud and abuse any power they get to attack or ban people and stop conversation and thus they can quickly turn a forum like this one into a bubble. And in doing so, they do far more damage to the liberal causes than conservatives could ever hope to because they actively push people away from liberal ideology.


Yes, right wing bubbles are a far bigger issue and they do more harm and become more hateful and racist over time, but a forum that becomes an authoritarian left bubble where differing views even if they are coming from a place of misinformation rather than a place of hate are namecalled, dogpiled on then banned, only serves to push people away from the left.


I am sure many of you recall the story of Justine Sacco, the woman that accidently tweeted a private joke to a friend about AIDs in Africa who was targeted for doxxing by the authoritarian left that got her fired from her job and sent her multiple death threats and harassing calls that required her and her family to go into police protection. The authoritarians on the left loudly cheered the ruination of her life by the internet mob they unleashed. No one with empathy (ie. a real liberal) would be okay with treating someone this way over a private joke that meant no one any harm. A real liberal would take into account context and intent.


This behavior is not confined to either side. Many of you likely also remember the story of Adam Smith, the CFO that posted a youtube video of his drivethru encounter with a chick fil a employee challenging their corporations homophobic views. Yes, he was bully, probably deserving of a small fine for harrassment and being forced to apologize to the woman. He was instead targeted (by right wing bubbles) for doxxing, death threats, and lost his job and his family lost their home and are now homeless and living off of food stamps. And the authoritarians on the right happily cheer this on.


One of the more recent examples is the H&M store that was targeted for rioting and looting by left authoritarians because of a racist ad their corportate HQ put out and immediately took down (those who published the ad likely didn’t even realize it was racist, why would any marketing company purposefully insult a whole class of people and lose out on customers and money. The individual store that was destroyed and the employees that rely on it to make a living were in no way responsible for the ad, but this clearly didn’t matter to the authoritarian left.


The left would advance liberal causes much more effectively the moment it stops excusing authoritarians on their side. Once they do so, fascism would become associated exclusively with the right and the right will once again start to wither and die.






I encourage you to freely and without any attribution modify this essay as you wish, anyway that you wish, and share it on any forum or community that you fear is slowly turning into a bubble.
 
Last edited:
#2
I'm not american so authoritarian left is less prevalent here but I can still see its effect (like my gf refusing to call herself a feminist) and I agree with your sentiment at large.
To me the main issue is not even in fighting with the other side (the right) but within itself.
When perfectly reasonable people (at least to my standard) get pushed out and do not feel they have a place in the left even when they share the same values what does it say about the movement.
I see you posted the same message on the other forum, you'll probably get a lot more disagreement there than here. Based on recent conversation topic most people here would agree with you I think.
 
#6
To me, the problem was never bubbles or safe spaces. The problem is the stuff in the middle, it's trash. Where are the places that you can find good left-right debate, not people shouting over each other. The whole "we'll just throw everyone together and it'll all just work out" doesn't work beyond people trying to internet dunk on their opponent.

Also, within a capitalist society is it possible for people on the internet to express their displeasure with a person without it having possibly severe effects on their life?
 
#7
This same post on Era is like Cancer, no critical thought just emotion based knee jerk answers. The Left have a real problem on their hands. Look around the world the Right are having a grand old time winning elections.
I had a quick gander (I regularly browse both forums but dont post there) and yeop, didn't even make it a single post before it hit the fan.

The majority of responses are made of up of snide remarks, people posting hostile remarks at OP and going full authotarian straight out the gate.

Granted it is a much more active forum so it has a lot more responses, but I'm guessing it doesnt make it 10 pages before the lock.
 
#10
Also, within a capitalist society is it possible for people on the internet to express their displeasure with a person without it having possibly severe effects on their life?
Depends on how you define a capitalist society. Reading the case of Justine Sacco in OP for example, I wonder how a company can be allowed to fire an employee for a private text (even if accidentally made public). No matter what has been said in the text actually, it's not a question of being in the right camp, but of being punished for a private opinion. It's been discussed in the other topic about the Subnautica dev, but I'm pretty sure that in many capitalist countries that wouldn't be enough to fire someone. It's not about capitalism, it's about a worker's rights.
The "angry crowd" element is used as a justification, as in "you're giving the company a bad image", but still that justification is quite thin, since it should be clear that one employee isn't the face of the company (unless they're in PR, obviously).
 
#11
I get your point and I guess it is more difficult for Americans to understand the terrors of the Authoritarian Left. In Europe we witnessed the results of millions of people dying in Eastern Europe. We still remember the RAF or other left terror groups killing people or blowing up bombs. And we also remember the dangers of the Authoritarian right, we still have to clean up bombs from that time, so we still life with it.

Maybe that is why on both sides of the political spectrum are gaining support. Of course this is not only happening in the US but if you look at Europe, the Right is mostly dominating in countries with a communist past. At the moment identifying as liberal is hard, but as history has told us, this will change again.
 
#12
The 'left' have had it far too easy for years now in stiffling debate. No longer do we get balanced, opposing but moderate opinions. This has created an echo chamber where 'leftism' or 'liberalism' is seen as the default view point or standard. With no challenge the more extreme or authoratarian wings are going to have an easy time of rearing their ugly head without consequence.

What's frighting is how many young uns are on board with the far left autoritarian way of thinking. But the world has had a Stalin or Mao before so it shouldn't be too surprising. Extremism can soon muster, which is why open debate of all kinds is critical.
 
#13
I disagree partly with you OP.

I think anything should be up for discourse, however what I think you confuse for Authoritarian, is the ramifications of Free Speech. Free Speech allows you to say what you want, but it doesn't make you immune to the consequences of it.

For instance if you say racist things in a public place, you have to deal with a reputation or accusations of being a racist. Within society we have a set of social contracts that govern the consequences of what we say. I don't think we could ever live in a reality without these contracts. If society views racism as bad and you commit acts of racism or advocate for it, you are going to deal with the repercussions of that.

What I think you really want is the following rule. ( I can remember who said it.) "Never attribute to malice, that which could be caused by ignorance." In other words as a race, the best way to further discourse is to always look at an argument in the best possible way.

Example.

"I think we need to look at why Black people commit more crime?"

At first glace you could say this is a racist statement. The person hasn't given evidence as to why they believe Black people commit more crime. It's an easy jump to assume this person might be racist, knee-jerk reaction and all.

The best possible version of this argument is that the person has evidence as to back up that statement and they aren't racist. The appropriate reaction would be to request the data, of if you have data to the contrary, assume ignorance on the behalf of the other/incorrect information.

I do agree there is a problem on the left with labeling people too quickly as racist/sexist/ect, but this is not really comparable to what goes on on the right. I think that's where we disagree the most OP. You seem to believe that Authoritarians on the left are high jacking the discourse. I have not seen any evidence of this and if you have any I would like you to present it. I on the other hand could point to any number of policies enacted by Trump/Republicans as to the very real threat they have to discourse.

Same post on Era, because OP seems not to be following the thread there anymore.
 
#14
You do realize that this is now too often mixed up with the critical theory even at Universities. Everything is now analyzed about who has power and who is getting oppressed.
Well, I mean it as in forming your argument and worldview on the basis of incoming evidence, and being willing to revise your beliefs when you're proven wrong.

Being able to think critically, not with emotion and feeling, not with moral virtue, and not with logical fallacies like can ideologue or an apologist.
 
Last edited:
#16
I disagree partly with you OP.

I think anything should be up for discourse, however what I think you confuse for Authoritarian, is the ramifications of Free Speech. Free Speech allows you to say what you want, but it doesn't make you immune to the consequences of it.

For instance if you say racist things in a public place, you have to deal with a reputation or accusations of being a racist. Within society we have a set of social contracts that govern the consequences of what we say. I don't think we could ever live in a reality without these contracts. If society views racism as bad and you commit acts of racism or advocate for it, you are going to deal with the repercussions of that.

What I think you really want is the following rule. ( I can remember who said it.) "Never attribute to malice, that which could be caused by ignorance." In other words as a race, the best way to further discourse is to always look at an argument in the best possible way.

Example.

"I think we need to look at why Black people commit more crime?"

At first glace you could say this is a racist statement. The person hasn't given evidence as to why they believe Black people commit more crime. It's an easy jump to assume this person might be racist, knee-jerk reaction and all.

The best possible version of this argument is that the person has evidence as to back up that statement and they aren't racist. The appropriate reaction would be to request the data, of if you have data to the contrary, assume ignorance on the behalf of the other/incorrect information.

I do agree there is a problem on the left with labeling people too quickly as racist/sexist/ect, but this is not really comparable to what goes on on the right. I think that's where we disagree the most OP. You seem to believe that Authoritarians on the left are high jacking the discourse. I have not seen any evidence of this and if you have any I would like you to present it. I on the other hand could point to any number of policies enacted by Trump/Republicans as to the very real threat they have to discourse.

Same post on Era, because OP seems not to be following the thread there anymore.
I diasgree I see far more violent attacks commited by the left. I see far more people from the "left" tring to get people fired for their believes etc. The left or extreme left has become pretty vile IMO. Just take a look how Antifa is being celebrated. Selfjustice should never be celebrated. Hunting people down because they diagree with you should never be celebrated.
And the thing that actually scares me for the future is that most of this happens on Universities or with students.

The extreme Left is out for your blood if you do not agree with them 100% . Laci green would be another good example here. She also describes them as a cult or religion. She grew up in a mormon community and when n Interviews she often compares her time back then with the left today.
 
#17
I diasgree I see far more violent attacks commited by the left. I see far more people from the "left" tring to get people fired for their believes etc. The left or extreme left has become pretty vile IMO. Just take a look how Antifa is being celebrated. Selfjustice should never be celebrated. Hunting people down because they diagree with you should never be celebrated.
And the thing that actually scares me for the future is that most of this happens on Universities or with students.

The extreme Left is out for your blood if you do not agree with them 100% . Laci green would be another good example here. She also describes them as a cult or religion. She grew up in a mormon community and when n Interviews she often compares her time back then with the left today.
What do you consider acts of violence? I ask because the examples you give, are people trying to get people fired for their beliefs, which is done by both sides, but I've yet to see any numbers on this. If you've got the numbers I'd like to see it.

Is Antifa an actual issue? I've looked into them and there are some extreme cases, but their existence in the US and UK is pretty much null.

I do have numbers for people killed by the alt-right, though I admit some of those are debatable. For that reason I find it a lot easier to look at policy.
 
#18
Depends on how you define a capitalist society. Reading the case of Justine Sacco in OP for example, I wonder how a company can be allowed to fire an employee for a private text (even if accidentally made public). No matter what has been said in the text actually, it's not a question of being in the right camp, but of being punished for a private opinion. It's been discussed in the other topic about the Subnautica dev, but I'm pretty sure that in many capitalist countries that wouldn't be enough to fire someone. It's not about capitalism, it's about a worker's rights.
The "angry crowd" element is used as a justification, as in "you're giving the company a bad image", but still that justification is quite thin, since it should be clear that one employee isn't the face of the company (unless they're in PR, obviously).
The Justine Sacco thing was a public tweet, not a private text made to a friend. It wasn't made public by accident, it was made all on purpose. She may have thought that just her followers would see it, but she didn't have a private account so that wasn't the case. Twitter is very much public, you shouldn't put anything there that you wouldn't be comfortable shouting from a street corner. And Justine Sacco worked in PR. From a worker's rights perspective I'm sure loads of companies do have social media terms in their contracts. Also it depends on where you work geographically.

I think in general you should chose very carefully what you put into the public sphere, especially if you're attaching your real name and company name to it. You're not the face of the company, but what you say can reflect poorly on them.
 

Nintendo Switch

ESRB rating: Early Childhood (EC)
#20
I’ve been called nigger before on multiple occasions. Nevertheless, i think the UK has gone off the deep end.


Anyone that thinks it’s okay to charge someone for posting lyrics to a rap song that contains the word “
nigger in it can not call themselves liberal.


https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-england-merseyside-43816921


Anyone that thinks it’s okay to jail someone for 5 months for training their dog to bark at the phrase Hail Hitler can not call themselves a liberal.


https://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/...ive-nazi-salute-tried-for-hate-crime-1.444146

Both are examples of clear cut authoritarianism, not liberalism.

Granted it is a much more active forum so it has a lot more responses, but I'm guessing it doesnt make it 10 pages before the lock.
Yep. You called it. This thread got so many responses at reset that it reached page 9 there in a little over an hour. But at Page 9 the thread was locked over at that other site for no reason other than that it made the authoritarians there uncomfortable.

Their reaction was a thing of beauty to see actually. My whole point was that you can be left and liberal without abandoning core values such as freedom of expression and the right to privacy. I included a exposition of how authoritarian left operates to undermine the actual left, how they name call, bully, dog pile then ban anyone that challenges their world view in even the tiniest of ways. And they like clock work as if to prove they are not liberals but are instead authoritarians did exactly everything I just said authoritarians would do, to a T, all the way down to banning me from starting new discussions. It’s like they have zero sense of awareness and zero sense of irony over there.

What happened to any semblance of liberals over there? Why do they go along with the authoritarians on that site?

And get this, the mods couldn’t come up with any justifiable reason to close the thread or ban me from starting new discussions so they made up the completely bullshit reason that thread needs to be locked and that I will no longer be allowed to start discussions there anymore because I had apparently not replied to enough people in the thread. LMAO. Seriously guys, you couldn't come up with a better reason to block me from replying to the thread than to claim that you did so because you wanted me to reply to thread more? This, eventhough within the span of the one hour that thread stayed open, I had already replied to more than a dozen people that disagreed with me to engage them in dialogue.

The mods even admit that I said absolutely nothing there that was a violation of ToA in any way. Just too many of the posters can’t handle any dissenting thoughts and were whining asking them to close the thread.


Sadly, it also seems that personal attacks are tolerated over there now just as long as they are aimed at anyone that strays from the bubble (so many people baselessly personally attacked me and accused me of being racist, and didn’t get so much as a warning).

Ironically I am a person of color that is probably is far more familiar with racism than 90% of the posters in that bubble that were accusing me of somehow being racist for holding the beliefs that I expressed in the OP. The level of hypocrisy, one sided enforcement and total lack of self awareness blows my mind.

I can’t believe that site already degraded that much that fast, to the point that it is terrified even to engage with liberals that share all of the same values they do? Simply for asking people to treat each other with respect, to view those that disagree with them as human beings. What does it say about any site that is afraid of even having that debate?

I don’t think gaf had ever got that bad and it hope it never will.

Agreed.

I mean, just look at what's in this thread. "Implicit bias". unconscious racism. You can be a racist without knowing you're a racist. In other words, NOT seeing color is bad, seeing color is good.

Their unhealthy obsession with race and gender is troubling. They need to create a hysteria in order to push their vile policies. They're actively engaged in social engineering. It ain't even about economics anymore. It's about social/cultural transformation.
I don’t think most people understand those terms.

What is a fact, as I mentioned in the OP, is that everyone is a product of the things they were exposed to in their formative years. EVERYONE has innate biases based on what they saw as kids and as teens. And one example of a major root cause of biases is the media, and the thing that kids do more than anything else is consume media.

For a long time, the media was filled with stereotypes. It’s finally starting to change over the past decade or two. But prior to 2000, Black characters were shown on tv shows as the gangbangers, poorly educated slaves, poorly educated athletes, poorly educated hardworking bus drivers, cops and custodial staff etc. Throughout the 20th century, examples of black people in the media as scientists, engineers etc were few and far between.

This effects everyone, even the black kids that watch this stuff and model what they view as viable careers for themselves. It creates an internal idea in children of what black people are supposed to be like. It perpetuates this biased and racist subconscious idea that people of color are inherently dumber than white people.

This is what is meant by implicit/unconcious racism. Finally the past few decades, Hollywood is a little more aware of this and started to cast black people into highly educated professional roles such as scientists and engineers, people like Neil Degrassi Tyson was given more face time. Movies were made about the black mathematicians that made the moon landing possible and were never given any credit for their contributions and it’s starting to decrease the amount of bias in the millenials that grew up with more of such examples. This is why this generation has more black people pursuing careers in science, math and engineering than ever before. It’s a trend that will likely continue and eventually this bias will be a defunct one. Thrown in the heapbin of history along with prior biases.

Why do you think so many Americans were okay with slavery? One factor was that back then, all the books and portrayals of black people in those books were as savage brutes (even today we still see that stereotype in the media from time to time). This created this subconscious bias in people that black people were not people. So they could ignore that shit about “All men are created equal and granted inalienable rights” in the constitution because black people were not people. This bias shit is serious. Without it, slavery would not have been possible.
I disagree partly with you OP.

I think anything should be up for discourse, however what I think you confuse for Authoritarian, is the ramifications of Free Speech. Free Speech allows you to say what you want, but it doesn't make you immune to the consequences of it.

For instance if you say racist things in a public place, you have to deal with a reputation or accusations of being a racist. Within society we have a set of social contracts that govern the consequences of what we say. I don't think we could ever live in a reality without these contracts. If society views racism as bad and you commit acts of racism or advocate for it, you are going to deal with the repercussions of that.

What I think you really want is the following rule. ( I can remember who said it.) "Never attribute to malice, that which could be caused by ignorance." In other words as a race, the best way to further discourse is to always look at an argument in the best possible way.

Example.

"I think we need to look at why Black people commit more crime?"

At first glace you could say this is a racist statement. The person hasn't given evidence as to why they believe Black people commit more crime. It's an easy jump to assume this person might be racist, knee-jerk reaction and all.

The best possible version of this argument is that the person has evidence as to back up that statement and they aren't racist. The appropriate reaction would be to request the data, of if you have data to the contrary, assume ignorance on the behalf of the other/incorrect information.

I do agree there is a problem on the left with labeling people too quickly as racist/sexist/ect, but this is not really comparable to what goes on on the right. I think that's where we disagree the most OP. You seem to believe that Authoritarians on the left are high jacking the discourse. I have not seen any evidence of this and if you have any I would like you to present it. I on the other hand could point to any number of policies enacted by Trump/Republicans as to the very real threat they have to discourse.

Same post on Era, because OP seems not to be following the thread there anymore.

That is an excellent point. I feel like "Never attribute to malice, that which could be caused by ignorance." is the precise message that I was trying to convey when I brought up empathy. Well stated
 
Last edited:
#21
So before this 'authoritarian' new left hijacked liberalism, the old left didn't support and idolize socialist totalitarians and mass murderers? It didn't sympathize or outright support the soviet union? It didn't wear guevara t-shirts? It didn't support or sympathize with terrorist organizations? This is the real left folks. Friends of hamas and hezbollah. Friends of north korea. Enemies of reason, logic, facts, and civilization. They just spend a whole lot of energy congratulating themselves on their 'empathy' (crocodile tears for politically convenient victims) and 'tolerance' and blah blah blah. Self-righteous hypocrites.

The great tragedy of classical liberal/capitalist civilization is that it protects many of these marxist totalitarians from their own idiocy. If there was justice in this world they'd all live in marxist shitholes of their own making.
 
Last edited:
#22
This same post on Era is like Cancer, no critical thought just emotion based knee jerk answers. The Left have a real problem on their hands. Look around the world the Right are having a grand old time winning elections.
Damn, I just had a quick look, and you're not wrong.
 
#23
I disagree. There is absolutely no evidence of what OP is saying. I think there is some truth to the fact that some leftists have become polarized when it comes to politics. But I see no evidence that the left is being hijacked by authoritarians.

The right elected an authoritarian president though, but threads like this keep blaming the left for that somehow. The right has literally been hijacked by racists that have actually murdered several people.

The reality is that authoritarians tend to come to power in periods of great instability. Trump is in power because the lower class and middle class is getting fucked in this country.

Donald Trump just gave a massive tax cut to the rich. He still hasn’t done anything about the opioid epidemic or healthcare. He wants to build a wall that is a massive waste of money.

But sure, keep blaming some liberals on twitter instead of realizing that it’s corporations that are fucking people up in this country.
 
Last edited:
#25
I disagree. There is absolutely no evidence of what OP is saying. I think there is some truth to the fact that some leftists have become polarized when it comes to politics. But I see no evidence that the left is being hijacked by authoritarians.

The right elected an authoritarian president though, but threads like keep this blaming the left for that somehow. The right has literally been hijacked by racists that have actually murdered several people.

The reality is that authoritarians tend to come to power in periods of great instability. Trump is in power because the lower class and middle class is getting fucked in this country.

Donald Trump just gave a massive tax cut to the rich. He still hasn’t done anything about the opioid epidemic or healthcare. He wants to build a wall that is a massive waste of money.
But sure, keep blaming some liberals on twitter instead of realizing that it’s corporations that are fucking people up in this country.
Just take a look at college campuses and at almost every "shitstorm" on Social media. These are mostly leftists- and modern feminists which are also authoritarians. It is about control of language and thought

I


It seems fine to me, it's overwhelmingly to the left and people disagree, some more strongly than others.

I don't see the point of it to be honest, era is what it is, gaf is what it is.
There is no place for a discussion there because they label the op a alt right and crazy. He posted he very long post about how he feels why he thinks like that etc. and what does he get back? "get out of here" and everyone ho tries to reason will be shouted down as well.

How is this fine?

This is the first answer: "great, forum spam" which was posted 1 minute after opening the thread.
 
Last edited:
#26
I have an issue with the authoritan left when it comes to eating its own; for instance I spent yesterday arguing with a friend that Star Trek Discovery(which i like, but even among its fans its controversial) is ignored for its groundbreaking moves of a casting a black female lead while Black Panther gets all the shine = sexism.

On the flip all this authoritanism left critique i find funny since its basically stealing the right’s SUCCESSFUL tactics. Its as if people are mad that suddenly those nice hippies they took advantage of are angry as fuck and ain’t gonna take it no more. Meanwhile even though they are hypocrites through and through if you deviate from the major party points (athiest, pro-choice) your a piece of shit. Does the right debate from a place of compassion where they try to change minds and be welcoming even tho a disturbing large amount tends to be Xtians? Nope. Its war. For the left to be successful it needs to be same.
 
#27
Just take a look at college campuses and at almost every "shitstorm" on Social media. These are mostly leftists- and modern feminists which are also authoritarians. It is about control of language and thought

There is no place for a discussion there because they label the op a alt right and crazy. He posted he very long post about how he feels why he thinks like that etc. and what does he get back? "get out of here" and everyone ho tries to reason will be shouted down as well.

How is this fine?
Again, I don’t disagree that certain portions of the left are radical. But I think it is disingenuous to claim that this is only happening on the left. You literally have an entire political movement (alt right) that has, again, spurred radical people on the right to go out and murder several innocent people.

You keep trying to frame this as “bu bu the authoritarian left” when we have an authoritarian president and several politicians on the right emulating him.

It is hypocritical and absurd. I could literally make this same thread about the right and it would actually be more pressing.

Also, your take on the Era thread is reductionist. There are lots of people giving him very good reasons as to why his thread is shit (the number one reason being that op doesn’t actually seem to know what liberalism is and seems to conflate left wing politics and social liberalism (which is just one type of liberalism) which I’ll excuse since they share a few things).
 
Last edited:
#28
There is no place for a discussion there because they label the op a alt right and crazy. He posted he very long post about how he feels why he thinks like that etc. and what does he get back? "get out of here" and everyone ho tries to reason will be shouted down as well.

How is this fine?

This is the first answer: "great, forum spam" which was posted 1 minute after opening the thread.
Some of them mentioned the alt right, a few agreed with the OP, most just disagreed with varying amounts annoyance.

I feel it was a reasonable response on the whole, it isn't perfect but what is?
 
Last edited:
#29
Again, I don’t disagree that certain portions of the left are radical. But I think it is disingenuous to claim that this is only happening on the left. You literally have an entire political movement (alt right) that has, again, spurred radical people on the right to go out and murder several innocent people.

You keep trying to frame this as “bu bu the authoritarian left” when we have an authoritarian president and several politicians on the eight emulating him.

It is hypocritical and absurd.
I do not mention them so much because it is known with the left its being almost completely ignored. I can give you an example from my country. When radical left or also Antifa has done this in a bank area



Left high ranking politicans even defended this criminal act of setting fires because they were punching up.... when Antifa assualted people, destroyed buildings etc the left again did celebrate these acts.
When the right does something even if its protesting a march etc they get almost lynched on social media. That is why I do not mention them because people already condemne these action with the right.
 
#30
Some of them mentioned the alt right, a few agreed with the OP, most just disagreed with varying amounts annoyance.

I feel it was a reasonable response on the whole, it isn't perfect but what is?
It is the perfect example why the left is eating themselves right now around the world. They act like this. And that is even without the HUGE amount of anti semitism going on in the left.

 
Last edited:
#31
Is Antifa an actual issue? I've looked into them and there are some extreme cases, but their existence in the US and UK is pretty much null.
Have you seen the G20 in Hamburg?

I do have numbers for people killed by the alt-right, though I admit some of those are debatable. For that reason I find it a lot easier to look at policy.
The first name on the list is already a huge stretch of the term alt-right. I makes the whole list dubious from the start.
 
#33
I have an issue with the authoritan left when it comes to eating its own; for instance I spent yesterday arguing with a friend that Star Trek Discovery(which i like, but even among its fans its controversial) is ignored for its groundbreaking moves of a casting a black female lead while Black Panther gets all the shine = sexism.

On the flip all this authoritanism left critique i find funny since its basically stealing the right’s SUCCESSFUL tactics. Its as if people are mad that suddenly those nice hippies they took advantage of are angry as fuck and ain’t gonna take it no more. Meanwhile even though they are hypocrites through and through if you deviate from the major party points (athiest, pro-choice) your a piece of shit. Does the right debate from a place of compassion where they try to change minds and be welcoming even tho a disturbing large amount tends to be Xtians? Nope. Its war. For the left to be successful it needs to be same.
the hippy movement and the anti-fa movement are night and day. They are incredibly far from equivalents
 
#34
Can I ask what sort of opinions cause the reaction you are talking about? Where the left will call people racist and such?
Intersectional Feminist. People not agreeing with other even they share the same ideology. Trying to silence liberal and leftwing people even. The moment you disagree with some statements a more radical fraction stated you are suddendly a nazi and alt right apologist.
 
#35
Have you seen the G20 in Hamburg?



The first name on the list is already a huge stretch of the term alt-right. I makes the whole list dubious from the start.

Do you have numbers of the Antifia members that took part in the protest? If not do you have the arrest numbers? I'm looking at the express article and it does talk about Antifia members being there, but they don't list numbers. They do imply that 1000 block of rioters might have been them. Even so how do Antifia represent a bigger threat in the west than groups like the Tea Party?

The list is debatable which like I said is why I'm more interested in policies and such. As it currently stands there appears to be a much more predominant support for extreme right wing views than there is left wing views. The march in Charlottesville last year was far larger than any recent Antifia/Left Exterme Groups rally in the US, at least to my knowledge.
 
Last edited:
#36
Intersectional Feminist. People not agreeing with other even they share the same ideology. Trying to silence liberal and leftwing people even. The moment you disagree with some statements a more radical fraction stated you are suddendly a nazi and alt right apologist.
That's not really the examples I was looking for. Are there issues in particular that cause this sort of reaction?

I've never heard of Intersectional Feminism and the first article I've read on it seems pretty nuanced. The idea that some groups of women face different levels of opposition is interesting. Nothing I would disagree with.
 
#37
Do you have numbers of the Antifia members that took part in the protest? If not do you have the arrest numbers? I'm looking at the express article and it does talk about Antifia members being there, but they don't list numbers. They do imply that 1000 block of rioters might have been them. Even so how do Antifia represent a bigger threat in the west than groups like the Tea Party?

The list is debatable which like I said is why I'm more interested in policies and such. As it currently stands there appears to be a much more predominant support for extreme right wing views than there is left win views. The march in Charlottesville last year was far larger than any recent Antifia/Left Exterme Groups rally in the US, at least to my knowledge.
Do you want the police report? 5+ Antifa member out of whole Europe were part of these riots. This is not even debatable here Another example would be 1st of may every year in which they go through the streets and burn cars, police cars, container etc.

As for Charlotesville. It was clearly a reaction to Berkley. Again if you do some bullshit that did happen in Berkley you will also get a reaction to it.
 
#38
Have you seen the G20 in Hamburg?



The first name on the list is already a huge stretch of the term alt-right. I makes the whole list dubious from the start.
No it doesn’t. At best, it gives you enough substance to say that the first name is debatable (there is a significant overlap between alt-righters and PUA/redpill/misogynistic types but you are right that they are not the same). You don’t get to invalidate the entire list just because of that.
 
#39
That's not really the examples I was looking for. Are there issues in particular that cause this sort of reaction?

I've never heard of Intersectional Feminism and the first article I've read on it seems pretty nuanced. The idea that some groups of women face different levels of opposition is interesting. Nothing I would disagree with.

Just watch this.

And its not just different opinions. It is to silence the ones who have different ones. It is not I do not agree with you Its "you are the worst of all for thinking like that"
 
Last edited:
#40
The Justine Sacco thing was a public tweet, not a private text made to a friend. It wasn't made public by accident, it was made all on purpose. She may have thought that just her followers would see it, but she didn't have a private account so that wasn't the case. Twitter is very much public, you shouldn't put anything there that you wouldn't be comfortable shouting from a street corner. And Justine Sacco worked in PR. From a worker's rights perspective I'm sure loads of companies do have social media terms in their contracts. Also it depends on where you work geographically.

I think in general you should chose very carefully what you put into the public sphere, especially if you're attaching your real name and company name to it. You're not the face of the company, but what you say can reflect poorly on them.
Thanks for the clarification. For a PR person, such situation is obviously professional malpractice, and justifies a sanction.
In the case of social media terms in a contract, it also makes things clear in such a situation : if someone is punished through that term, it is for violating his contract, not because of public outrage or an individual decision. But that's also what should protect a worker when there is no such term in his contract : as long as all the contract conditions are respected, there is no reason for the employee to lose his job. That's the whole purpose of a contract, and what the public sphere thinks or does shouldn't matter.
I do agree though that anybody should be careful about making his opinion public (which is the reason I don't ^^). But "being unpopular in society" shouldn't be tied to "losing your job".
 
#41
Intersectional Feminist. People not agreeing with other even they share the same ideology. Trying to silence liberal and leftwing people even. The moment you disagree with some statements a more radical fraction stated you are suddendly a nazi and alt right apologist.
That is one of the main problems of the Authoritarian left. They don't have a mechanism to stop the most extreme forces, but move more to the extremes and cast out the people who are not following the new normal anymore. Most movements have a system that stops this trend, the church excommunicated extremists or in Eastern Europe they were executed as enemies of the people. Mao wanted an eternal revolution and we know how the culture revolution ended. That is why a lot of people on the extreme left leak articles how it is to be inside those circles, how they feel pressured to show loyalty again and again not to get cast out. It reads like something somebody during the culture revolution or the inquisition would write.
 
#42
I do not mention them so much because it is known with the left its being almost completely ignored. I can give you an example from my country. When radical left or also Antifa has done this in a bank area



Left high ranking politicans even defended this criminal act of setting fires because they were punching up.... when Antifa assualted people, destroyed buildings etc the left again did celebrate these acts.
When the right does something even if its protesting a march etc they get almost lynched on social media. That is why I do not mention them because people already condemne these action with the right.
So you do agree with me that there is absurd radicalism on both sides. You are just choosing to focus on left-wing radicalism. So let me ask you this then: what do you think caused left-wing radicalism?
 
#44
No it doesn’t. At best, it gives you enough substance to say that the first name is debatable (there is a significant overlap between alt-righters and PUA/redpill/misogynistic types but you are right that they are not the same). You don’t get to invalidate the entire list just because of that.
There is an overlap between a lot of movements and groups, but the whole broad brush is exactly the problem we have in the discourse right now. Gamers no this first hand, because it used to be, that after pretty much every school shooting they were blamed, because the shooters had games at home.

Alt-right actually means alt-right and not something close or similar. You are weakening your position if you do not argue carefully, because people can attack you on that. It may look less impressive if you leave out a few names, because you are not sure, but your message is at least intact.
 
#45
Do you have numbers of the Antifia members that took part in the protest? If not do you have the arrest numbers? I'm looking at the express article and it does talk about Antifia members being there, but they don't list numbers. They do imply that 1000 block of rioters might have been them. Even so how do Antifia represent a bigger threat in the west than groups like the Tea Party?

The list is debatable which like I said is why I'm more interested in policies and such. As it currently stands there appears to be a much more predominant support for extreme right wing views than there is left wing views. The march in Charlottesville last year was far larger than any recent Antifia/Left Exterme Groups rally in the US, at least to my knowledge.
What are extreme right wing views and what are extreme left wing? And the support there of?
 
#46
Intersectional Feminist. People not agreeing with other even they share the same ideology. Trying to silence liberal and leftwing people even. The moment you disagree with some statements a more radical fraction stated you are suddendly a nazi and alt right apologist.
You frame a lot of issues in the context of being an issue of modern feminism which I do not think is accurate. That is not to say I agree with modern feminism but I think you give them far to much credit.
 
#47
So you do agree with me that there is absurd radicalism on both sides. You are just choosing to focus on left-wing radicalism. So let me ask you this then: what do you think caused left-wing radicalism?
What does cause right wing radicalism would be the same question. People feel lost, people feel unheard and they fear to get challenged by different views. People reacted to events like Berkley and charlottesville And As I said before. I am not talking that much about it because right wing already condemned so if you know something is bad you do not need to warn or discuss this anymore
 
#48
You frame a lot of issues in the context of being an issue of modern feminism which I do not think is accurate. That is not to say I agree with modern feminism but I think you give them far to much credit.
Personally I think it is a HUGE danger for free speech and free thinking and I am not alone here. See camille paige as a great example for what I am thinking.
 
#49
Do you want the police report? 5+ Antifa member out of whole Europe were part of these riots. This is not even debatable here Another example would be 1st of may every year in which they go through the streets and burn cars, police cars, container etc.

As for Charlotesville. It was clearly a reaction to Berkley. Again if you do some bullshit that did happen in Berkley you will also get a reaction to it.
5+ doesn't necessarily constitute as the main factor in a protest that turned into a riot. I could argue that Green Peace were the major reason behind the violence, because I know there were far many more there than here. I feel like getting bogged down in isolated instances like this problematic, because it's all anecdotal, unless we have numbers to back them up. The G20 summit isn't enough to push all the Antifia as a violent group.


Just watch this.

And its not just different opinions. It is to silence the ones who have different ones. It is not I do not agree with you Its "you are the worst of all for thinking like that"
I don't disagree that instances of this can happen, but her personal experience doesn't define the Left. The issue I have is that people take anecdotes and use them to smear the whole left. I will continue to listen to the video and see if they list more evidence.

That is one of the main problems of the Authoritarian left. They don't have a mechanism to stop the most extreme forces, but move more to the extremes and cast out the people who are not following the new normal anymore. Most movements have a system that stops this trend, the church excommunicated extremists or in Eastern Europe they were executed as enemies of the people. Mao wanted an eternal revolution and we know how the culture revolution ended. That is why a lot of people on the extreme left leak articles how it is to be inside those circles, how they feel pressured to show loyalty again and again not to get cast out. It reads like something somebody during the culture revolution or the inquisition would write.
I'm sure these groups exist and I'm sure they do have issues, but I just don't see them as a threat to Freedom and Free speech as much as the Right. Authoritarians exist on both sides. The problem I have is numbers. I need to see them if you want to convince me that this is more of an issue, than the attacks on freedoms of people by the Alt-Right?

Also you comparison of the Extreme left to things like Moa, dictatorships or the church in the medevil age is non-nonsensical. How are these remotely similar?
 
#50
What are extreme right wing views and what are extreme left wing? And the support there of?
Examples that come to mind, but are not limited to, are:

Right:
Creation of White Ethno States.

Left:
The Banning of all Genders.

To my knowledge no one in the political spectrum is pushing for the left one. Richard Spencer support the Right one.