You wrote: "But isn't the spectrum from far left to far right bookended by cults? And aren't the only people who deny this fact, those who have 'picked a side'? Any time anyone speaks against one extreme exclusively, to me, it only highlights their bias."
It certainly sounds reasonable to say so, right? We know that political spectrums exist, and that - on paper, at least - we have people on the extremes of each end.
Off the top of your head, are you able to name any left-leaning, violent organizations that function along similar ways as "The Proud Boys", "Patriot Prayer", "The Fraternal Order of the Alt-Knights", "The Oath Keepers", skinheads, and neo-Nazis like Richard Spencer?
Extreme left and extreme right are not functionally equivalent, and from this, "if I'm forced to pick a side in the faintest degree of bias, I extrapolate from this, that any success of the alt right movement, is a direct result of the left losing control of their alt left members and keeping the dialogue accountable. And the reason I believe this is because its far easier to disregard a far left person than it is to disregard a far right person. One is blindly annoying, and the other is intentionally dangerous, so by proxi, given this intention/reaction dynamic, the blindly annoying one is really the most dangerous because as this system is doomed to cylcle continously without end, the one contributor to this never ending cycle, with the least accountability and awareness of their contribution is the most dangerous", for you to suggest that the effects on people fall more so on the left side than the right, is just evidence that you've already made up your mind. Nobody's forced you to pick the side of intentional danger, over the side of blindly annoying.
Do you know anyone who's EVER been literally annoyed TO death? That has never happened.
You have chosen poorly.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 16-Sep-21 19:17 by OCaptain.