> and when "anybody who thinks that it's okay for there to be consequences for racism / sexism / other bigotry is a worthless California leftist and should be ignored" became the default modus operandi of many right-wing extremists.

That was always the MO of right-wing extremists. But after Trump's election is when people whose views were once considered moderate-left to moderate-right suddenly became "far-right", "alt-right", or "Nazis".

I think it stems from a mentality that someone else pointed out: not wanting to discuss the matter is tacit support for the status quo. A.k.a. "if you aren't part of the solution, you're part of the problem." A.k.a. "Until they are free they are part of the System, and that System is the enemy." If you aren't anti-racist or anti-sexist enough, you must be racist or sexist.

bitwize said that, after Trump's election, a lot of stuff got labeled "far right" that never was before.

You replied that bitwize was supporting white nationalists and repeating a propaganda narrative.

Hmm... I'd say you just proved bitwize's point.

Most moderates are fine with consequences for racism/sexism/etc, but we object to willfully misinterpreting one's political opponents as espousing racism/sexism/etc in order to justify their persecution. It's the weaponization of those consequences that we object to.

You see weaponization, I see regular old consequences.

That's fine that you see it that way; let's have a debate about that. Why do we punish people for being skeptical, for example, that discrimination is the principle cause for disparities in tech employment or the wage gap? Why is it fundamentally sexist to _merely consider_ the possibility that there are population level differences between men and women--even when those differences leave men and women equal on average (e.g., Damore)?

How can we resist racism/sexism without a basis in knowledge? And if we have that basis in knowledge, how can we verify if verification is itself racist/sexist?