One of the funniest parts of this is that a common critique by liberals in the US against the modern left is that the left is largely too CIS, white, and male.

Police sure, and you could argue for conservatives maybe. The others, no.

The far right thinks black people are flatly inferior, and tolerate or encourage violence and oppression against them because of this.

The far left's attitude toward white people is "it's bad that white people are dominant in society because of historical/structural racism", even in cases like affirmative action the clear goal is eventual equality, not that they want white people to end up structurally oppressed instead.

If you can't see the difference in how toxic each of these attitudes are, I'm afraid I can't help you.

But I'd love to see you explain how the left is apparently bigoted against straight people.

As a straight white dude from the rural United States who regularly hangs out in extremely far-left circles in very far-left places... you're out of your mind.

I've never once heard a 'leftist' advocate for the murder of men, whites, straight people, conservatives, or rural dwellers (although, to be fair, occasionally the police). However, growing up and still when I visit home, I regularly hear how black people, queer people, and just liberals in general, aren't worthy of being left alive. These sides are not equivalent, no matter how desperately you want them to be.

Also, my induction into these liberal circles went so far as "you want people to be treated equally? cool.". I didn't have to hand in my cis-white-man card and tattoo an anarchy symbol. In fact, we regularly talk about all sorts of controversial subjects. My friends often enjoy hearing what it was like to grow up in the world of pocket knives and bar fights. I take my communist friends out to shoot guns. Ask me how many of my rural friends have ever asked to experience life among the queers?

You're comparing a rose bush with thorns to a semi-automatic rifle in terms of aggression towards the other party.

And. To the point of 1984-style revisionist history, old man. Statues are symbols we use to celebrate heros and victors. It's plain-as-day simple to look at a statue of a treasonous black-hating slave owner and say "maybe a statue of these pricks isn't the best way to memorialize history". It's not re-writing history to say "the union won and let's not celebrate slave owners". It's re-writing history to say "these slave owners are heros, lets memorialize them in statues".

There's a lot of problems with your comment but I'll stick with the most egregious/shocking point.

Are you really suggesting that confederate leaders are republican heros? And if-so... are you acknowledging that republicans admire and would like to celebrate treasonous bigots that went to war against the United States so that they could own slaves?

Sounds to me like you're admitting that the platform of the republican party is literally that of racists. So, in that way, I understand why these groups would respond to being oppressed by racists with violence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3n-cI4wXCM&feature=youtu.be...

Hmm, yes, imagine if a bunch Republicans took over a government building, armed to the teeth. I can't fathom it.

Wait now. Let's be honest with ourselves here. There's a big difference between these situations. The police didn't throw tear gas at the republicans.