The first paragraph, which appeared to be what was rejected, was a generalization, not a recounting of personal experience.
And, nothing in the post you responded to was any kind of rejection that violates any precept that is particularly common, AFAICT, on the left (it might, I suppose, violate a right-wing stereotype of the left, but, then, that's more a problem of the alignment of the stereotype with reality.)
You are correct. I was wrong.
Again, the term "left" is useless without defining it first. I have no idea what the hell you actually mean when you say "left".
People define themselves by these terms and the terms are also widely used. If you can't figure them out, that's on you.
Is that so? Because I've heard definitions of "right" as variously economically liberal, economically protectionist, socially conservative, socially liberal (as in classical liberalism), non-interventionist in foreign policy, interventionist in foreign policy, anti-statist, statist and so forth.
In fact, all of these contradictory views have belonged or continue to belong to various movements categorized as "right-wing".
So I'm asking about what you mean. Or perhaps you don't mean anything and are simply looking for an ax to grind.
Though, really, "left" and "right" are useless terms without defining your usage of them beforehand. Rest assured, there are many right-wingers who are all too willing to make the personal political and to stifle dissent. In fact, that's more-or-less a signature distinction of the New Right that emerged around the era of Buckley and National Review.