This is also a fractal observation, relative to the perspective of "orthodoxy" you are taking at the moment; within the directly opposed group, there is another dangerous place of just outside the opposed group's orthodoxy.

I'd contrast this with the common intuitive belief that by indicating your agreement with the orthodoxy in most other ways, you've somehow built up "credit" with which you can "afford" a deviation. I would observe that model does not match reality very often. There's a few relatively idealistic communities where that may work, but in general that is not how people work.

https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin...

The focus is often on censoring those on the right (which does happen too), but those on the left may be the most censored.

This guy gets it

And there is also of neoliberals that pretend to be leftist, yes, so called "Radlibs".

Then there are leftists that accuse other leftists that aren't of their same brand of being liberals, for example MLs calling anarchists liberals because they admit markets, or anarchists calling MLs capitalists/liberals because of state capitalism and the DotP, and then MLs calling DemSocs liberals because they want to operate at least partiallty within "bourgeois democracy", etc...

It's a very North America thing, though.

> And there is also of neoliberals that pretend to be leftist, yes, so called "Radlibs".

These are the people doing the canceling (both to the left and the right of them). It's worth nothing the distinction as it's this group with the power.

Or, at least, approximately nobody; you can find examples of anything, but it's not like a significant thing.

Leftism emerged as sociology critiqued the idealist liberal notions for their ignorance of real-word effects due to material reality on the actual freedom and oppressive social structures that strict classical liberalism creates.

Who has ever been fired for supporting Sanders over Biden?

> Twitter bans leftist accounts all the time as well.

Probably not because they were leftist, but rather because they violated some rule (and at that, probably only a small fraction of Tweets which violate their rules). Twitter is pretty happy to fill my timeline with the craziest left-wing stuff including a lot of things that violate their own rules.

> Take a look at every VC in our industry and they espouse staunchly establishment neo-liberal policies.

What? You're surprised that VC support capitalist policies? You know what "VC" stands for, right? Anyway, "supporting capitalist policies" is not the same thing as "canceling leftists".

This is a poorly reasoned post.

But anyway, accepting the new position of the goal posts, can you demonstrate examples of people who were passed up for promotion. Of course it's harder to prove these things causally, but if it happens often enough to have a chilling effect it should surely be trivial to identify one-or-two cut and dry cases?

Regardless, the point I'm making is that leftists must self-censor (just like the right wing people in the article) because those in power are anti-left neo-liberals.

Lol nope.

> Regardless, the point I'm making is that leftists must self-censor (just like the right wing people in the article) because those in power are anti-left neo-liberals.

Ok, I disagree with your point. I don’t like conservative beliefs, but people with even moderate points of view get fired due to Twitter mobs. There are perhaps hundreds of videos of people physically assaulting strangers for wearing MAGA hats (you know, “Social Consequences” TM). I’m not aware of any similar instances of moderate liberals attacking progressives or getting them fired or even passed up for promotion. I don’t think there’s any comparison at all.

Look at what the liberals have done to Tara Reade for instance. There's a group on Twitter called KHive that's dedicated to taking down leftists.

You just don't hear about this stuff as much because again, the neo-liberals control the media and they don't want to show you how much they punch left.