For me it was the policing of speech in the name of political correctness and trying to unperson people. I grew up with the belief "I disagree with what you have to say but I will fight for your right to say it". Now everyone's spineless and believes that people can't say certain things because it offend people. (read; me)


And now it just feels like a race to be the most oppressed and victimized.

Yah, a grievance audit, one without end, with nothing to gain.

Mm, it's perfectly natural that people one has to tread on eggshells around become insufferable. It is an effective demand that they have power over what those around them can express, which ultimately creates an environment of lies, where people won't say how they really feel about damn near anything XP.

I don't know if this is necessarily exclusive to the left, but I can't stand arguments used to paint all police on earth as evil.
Worse is that no one seems to know that the ACAB phrase is considered a hate symbol by The Anti-Defamation League for its popularization with skinheads.
It sounds very hypocritical to me when one claims to fight for equality but then uses an acronym spread by racists.

I don't know when it was, but at this point I hate most political sides. Both have their own issues and that's not the problem. the problem is the extremists. All sides have them, its inevitable. and I think it's too late to do anything for the country because tensions are so high.

Maybe that's just because I'm still technically an angsty teen though

The whole lack of empathy and understanding in favor of mindless shaming and censorship is one of the main reasons why I grew to abhor leftist "wokeness"/identity politics over the years. I tried to take the people siding with the movement seriously back in the day (especially when it came to raising awareness of ableism), but it became increasingly hard to find any reasonable middle ground when it essentially boiled down to "I'm offended, therefore this thing is ableist/racist/transphobic and needs to be canceled." Basically, the whole social justice warrior mentality had completely taken over and destroyed any chance of having a decent conversation about these issues, and after having just overcome a very personal struggle with accepting my autism diagnosis, the last thing I wanted to see was a bunch of neurotypical SJWs acting like they knew better than me when it came to my struggle, especially when they'd try to brand things as being "offensive" on my behalf (like saying you're not allowed to use words like "slow" or "blind" because they can also be used to refer to disabilities). If the only way these people know how to make things more fair for people like me is lower the bar and ruin everyone else's fun, then they're really just enforcing bigotry of low expectations, which is something I will never get behind.

If I had to pinpoint a "tipping point" moment for me, I'd say Derpygate was what really opened my eyes and showed me just how hypocritical these so-called "progressives" can be. Essentially, these people were getting outraged and calling for the censorship of an innocent character from a TV show that most of us (including me) had no problem with because they thought it was "offensive to people with disabilities". What followed was an unbearable barrage of self-righteous cyberbullies essentially sending the writers and fans of the show hate mail (often with the typical "I've worked with children on the spectrum" excuse thrown in), and acting like they know better than the people they claim to be fighting for when it comes to what's considered acceptable. To make matters worse, the people in charge bent the knee, censoring the character to look more "normal", shortening the "offensive" scene featuring said character, and removing any dialogue that mentioned the character by name. Even though people like me with actual disabilities were perfectly fine with how the character was originally portrayed, the "woke" crowd didn't care. All that mattered to them was that they threw a fit and got what they wanted.

Since then, any talk from these people regarding "representation" and "diversity" just sounds hollow and meaningless to me, mainly because that's exactly what it is. These people don't actually want to "listen and believe" at all. If they really cared about empowering marginalized people, they wouldn't shut them down with a holier-than-thou attitude whenever they're faced with something that goes against their narrow-minded worldview. All they care about is controlling others, which is anything but fair and inclusive.

When Trump got elected and pretty much all democrats in my family called him all kinds of insults. It could be the case where we have a black conservative who is gay or trans and libs will still go after him/her.

In Chicago the mayor is a gay black woman, and she was given great fanfare and called a hero when she was first elected. She has been widely attacked recently over her keeping silent about knowing about a botched Chicago police raid, but I'm sure people have become disillusioned with her long before that.

Was she conservative or does it have nothing to do with liberal or conservative labels?

Hardly conservative. simply a Democrat. That is why progressives originally admired her.

Not surprised. But unfortunately tolerance has become a one-way street when it comes to how we vote.

Simple: when they become the prey instead of the beneficiary, that's when they realise how wrong it is. I've seen it happen.

I was never a leftist; the ones I've talked to have basically been simple-minded and while they laugh at religion, they show themselves as susceptible to even more ridiculous blind faith. That there are so many homosexual religious folk and conservatives is really no surprise these days; it goes to show how mainstreamed homosexual have become.

Hmm, I don't know that I have one, I feel free to cry BS on hypocrisy and other cognitive defects or rational flaws regardless of labels like left, right, liberal or conservative, progressive or regressive.
I consider myself a rational pragmatist and ALL of those fools are barking up the wrong trees.

One of the biggest problems I see is radicalization's tendency to get people to fool themselves that the opposition is actually saying what the bullet points one runs into on one's own 'side' SAYs they are saying. That's part of the 'bubble' effect people talk about these days.

I was pretty laisse faire growing up because I felt that the monotheistic hegemony over culture was relatively harmless whose power did not extend to actual social circles I and the people I knew chose to participate in. With the advent of the internet I was able to find communities I was interested in and explore my own imagination whether it be games, Dnd, furry stuff, or hell, just writing. I knew my family and my RL friends would never understand these aspects of my interests so I never really told them about it.

However, since I graduated college, I began to notice more and more how the "progressive" left has inserted itself into every aspect of my life. There is no escape. It made me realize that Monotheistic Religions in the developed world have already gone through the phase where they force everyone to conform or else they will literally burn you at the stake or otherwise kill you many many years ago and have settled into a "Follow us or your soul will be damned" posture but a "hey, we won't do anything to you physically because ultimately it is up to you if you want to be saved" stance. Progressivism in the colloquial sense however, kind of has and kind of has not. The French Revolution and aspects of the rise of the Soviet Union comes to mind. yet similar forces that drove these two events in our history are repeating again now with a twist, the usurpation of the sovereignty and prosperity of nations by corporate interests.

So what are the differences between the modern forms of monotheistic religions and the progressives? One follows a central figure as God and follows specific tenants that are slow to change over a long period of time. The other follows a centralized authority, though not limited to one being, whose tenants are quick to change and in and outgroups also change just as quickly in order to maintain and seize more power and influence by any means necessary. Both feels it is necessary to interfere in your private life. One has long ago lost dominant hegemony over the globe so local chapters are more interested in the state of one's eternal soul. The other wants to actively(since religion has already done this and lost it many years ago) gain global hegemony and will not only insert itself into your private life, but (depending on your immutable characteristics) seek to control your actions, what information you have access to, and the opportunities you are allowed to pursue regardless of your own interests or self interests.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...

I think we could have an interesting discussion in another venue. Personally, I don't consider the current radical/progressive folks an organization so much as a movement or revolution - that would come later after they stratify and stagnate. In the midst of such dynamic changes there's really not one perspective to grasp hold of and analyze, and you can only look at their behavior in aggregate or risk getting lost in the chaos. Like if they were fish, we're not talking a school of fish darting this way and that, but more like a shoal of sharks after a bucket of bloody chum hits the water.

Long and short of that is that if folks are thinking of themselves as progressives, I'm seeing less of an Age of Enlightenment where equality and liberty are being moved forward so much as tipping towards La Terreur, and I've long since stepped away from really engaging with a lot of those friends, because I sure as heck wouldn't want to be Danton to anyone's Robespierre. Better to be well out of the mix entirely.

So I guess I should review my 'tipping point' assessment from up front, as I can see I did have one, about three heartbeats into #MeToo when I looked around, assessed things and swiftly exited several forums and subculture spaces doomed to be caught up along the way.

There are fads and there are fads. I remember when "Malcolm X' clothing was popular and very like few of the people who actually wore them knew Malcolm X from "Malcolm In The Middle" (a sitcom from years back). Same with Che Guevara. For that matter, how many people know much of anything about Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud?

I think in a couple of years people will think that "genderfluid" is a type of personal lubricant.

Ha! Better than the brand name that I came up with - 'Glube' for some really thick slick stuff.

Neither the left nor the right seem to acknowledge evidence-based, real world results. There is certainly no conservative moratorium on the truth- Donald Trump has lain that bare.

There are extremists on both sides you know. Always has been, always will be. Ideologies are mutable like clay, and stretch and mold into different shapes and forms. Sometimes ideologies that seem solid at one time fall apart after a while, and some never even really get established.

I see the left trying on a number of different shoes. Most of them don't fit. I see the right trying to force itself into a pair that's two sizes too small. Personally, I believe that being flexible isn't a bad thing, as by trying different things you learn what works and what doesn't and why. The left has always been a touch more willing to do this. Hopefully they are learning. Hopefully the right will stop torturing the truth long enough to learn along with them. Further still, I hope a consensus is eventually reached that does away with the bullshit, and treats people like people.

Liberalism is a desire for a more fair and compassionate society, and the left does have a serious problem with flouting inconvenient truths in a well-intentioned pursuit of that. So I understand the correlation of socialism with gender equivocators, but you really shouldn't have to be told that an economic philosophy and gender have nothing at all to do with each other.

"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions." In other words, you can do something with the best of intentions and end up causing harm rather than good. Such as the invention of LSD, which was supposed to help mental illness and did no such thing.

As for gender, men and women really are different. Otherwise the people who got transgender surgery all wasted their money, ha-ha. Females on average are smaller than men, have less upper body strength, know certain things that men don't, but above all, are more willing to judge their fellow females more harshly than males would.

For me? I've always been allergic to censorship and I have disliked moral buisybodies with a passion no matter which side they're on. It was when around 2013 / 2015 that I began to notice that people really seemed to lose their collective sense of logical reasoning in favor of acting solely on gut-reaction. I remember back in the 80's and 90's it was the Right who wanted to censor books, films and videogames because they 'felt' that it might lead to people suddenly turning into "immoral savages" without a single shred of evidence and now it was the Left parading these very same ideas (the whole: "fiction affects reality"-argument) without a single hint of irony or self-awareness.

Both sides seemed to always have had trouble with those pesky things called: "facts" and "truth". You show someone statistics and scientific research to back up your claims and they'll either say that it's "propaganda" or will go: "Oh but this only happened in these -other- countries, not in mine!" yes, but when 10 different countries have very similar results there might be some truth to it. Whenever it's something that fits their own world-view, suddenly a single Twitter post by a psuedo-scientist is all that's needed to confirm it.

I've also disliked the whole goal post shifting tactics or that you can't even ask questions or defend yourself when accused of something horrible (eg. drawing cartoons) without being labelled as the worst person to have ever walked the planet.

As far as I can see, it has always been about one thing and one thing only: Control and sadly, that will never change.

Well I've been thinking about this for a while. There are several tipping points for me:

1. Rules over People: Some ideologies put strict adherence to rules over the good of people. On the "left" side those are strict "Codes of Conduct" which do not account for people making honest mistakes, and condone hate against people who brake those rules. On the right side this is strict adherence to believes like extremes of properties, like that it's OK for companies to act against the interest of the public and to waste money.

2. Believes contradicted by facts and logic: There are belief systems that are contradicted by facts or logic. The most prominent example is "Objectivism", the ideology crafted by Ayn Rand claiming that best for society if everyone is selfish. There are numerous practical examples proving this wrong, from school children trying to all get into a room at once, to classic Ethernet. I guess on the left side an example would be people not liking plastic straws (which is fair enough), but then throwing away the plastic straws they already have while believing they solved a relevant part of the problem of plastic pollution.

Perhaps related to 1 is that people are complex. People may be complete idiots or assholes, yet they can have good ideas or make good decisions. For example I consider "Jens Spahn" the health minister of Germany a complete and utter asshole. He plans to sell health data to companies, he hasn't addressed the problem of care. He hasn't addressed the problem of financing hospitals. Yet I cannot fault his CoViiD-19 vaccination strategy for which he often gets citicised.

I personally consider myself to be more leaning to the left. In my income group I consider myself to be responsible for people who are worse off than me, however I would prefer a good social system to be in place to do that, and to make that independent of my whim.