I think you have to play pretty fast and loose with the groups involved to come to these conclusions.

Yeah... Anytime a paragraph starts with a dictionary definition it is rarely going to result in a good explanation of a difficult and nuanced topic.

I think the salient point is that there are extremists on both sides but the article only concerns itself with right-wing extremists. In effect, this isn't a campaign against "extremism", it's a campaign to combat right-wing extremism while left-wing extremism continues to proliferate unfettered.

The OP characterizes this as a cultural revolution, but I don't think he made a particularly good case for it. Notably, I think "passively tolerating left-wing extremism while cracking down on right-wing extremism" is pretty weak evidence for CR. Rather, I would argue that CR begins when left authoritarianism begins--when the mainstream, majority viewpoint (the Overton Window) takes a back-seat to the left-wing extremist viewpoint due to intimidation.

If I were to argue that we're on the brink of a CR, I would sooner invoke cancel culture: threatening to get someone fired for espousing mainstream viewpoints (e.g., advocating for nonviolent protest or Tweeting an interview with a black man concerned about black-on-black crime). I would invoke BLM riots (no, I'm not talking about peaceful protests) and a media that refused to challenge the predominant narrative with obvious questions (e.g., "How are we collectively so sure that the cause of the shooting disparity is 'racist police' and not some other factor, to the extent that we are ready to burn neighborhoods to the ground rather than entertain dialogue?") and instead spent months rationalizing the violence. I would also note how remarkable it was that nearly every business in the hardest-hit areas were quick to hang "This business supports BLM" or "PoC owned business" signs, while their suburban and rural locations felt no such compulsion. I would invoke surveys showing chilled speech in newsrooms and the academy or an explicit willingness, pride even, from the same institutions to discriminate solely on the basis of politics.

Ultimately though, while left-wing extremism is concerning, I'm less interested in arguing over the threshold at which it becomes "Cultural Revolution". I think we should content ourselves to note that it is fundamentally illiberal and anti-human and continue advancing the causes of peace, justice, equality, and prosperity.

> I would also note how remarkable it was that nearly every business in the hardest-hit areas were quick to hang "This business supports BLM" or "PoC owned business" signs, while their suburban and rural locations felt no such compulsion.

One strains themselves wondering how anyone could possibly know this as a fact. Take a breath and think about this statement for a second and it becomes absurd in the extreme. This is disinformation par excellence; it sounds great if you agree, but cannot possibly be a fact either way. Bravo

It is constantly amazing to me that although we had a white supremacist president in the US, HN commenters always want to stress how “illiberal and anti-human” left wingers are. If I recall correctly, there are about 525k bodies on that president to be accounted for first

I suspect they put it that way because they don't want to offend conservative readers.

Please explain what you mean by this.

The Democrats beat back a left-wing challenge from their base quite handily and Joe Biden was proud to say so. When I consider this and the generally contemptuous attitude of Dems toward their more progressive supporters, I find the notion of a Red Guard reshaping America in their image something like a fever dream and not a serious analysis.

To my mind the Capitol raid is playing a much larger role in their minds. The thought isn't "we need to create a far left America" but "we came way too close to the peaceful transfer of power being usurped."

Except the progressive goals were his first day executive actions and are now on the legislature’s agenda.

The core base of the Democratic party; Pelosi, Schumer, Feinstein, and their ilk; have been in power in their jerrymandered districts for decades, and in line with accusing others what what they themselves are doing, they accused the Republicans for over a year with planning to usurp power for the mortal sin of making a fuss over Mail In Balloting, something most western countries have heavily restricted or outright banned.

In a country with more firearms in civillian ownership then every other countries military combined, Nobody in the Democratic party believes there was actually an insurrection. If there were, there'd be no place for congress or the senate to hide from the nationwide guerilla warfare.

As has happened so many times in politics, political parties get hijacked. The Democrats have been hijacked by foreign interests, the Republicans are in the process of being hijacked by domestic populists.

> Pelosi, Schumer, Feinstein, and their ilk; have been in power in their jerrymandered districts for decades,

Er, Senate “districts” are States, it is impossible for them to be gerrymandered. So clearly that's impossible for 2 out of 3.

And while Pelosi is in the House, no one is going to point to CA-12 as much of an example of gerrymandering.

https://pelosi.house.gov/about/our-district

Getting a massive army to go for years of guerilla war is quite a different proposition from getting a small, committed group of people to storm a building and start taking hostages, especially if there is a rump that supports them.

So you don't need a massive army to engage in an insurrection but you do need a massive army to engage in Guerilla warfare? What sized army do you need to engage in terrorism?

Your own scenario was a large percentage of gun owners rising up, wasn't it? I'm simply telling you I think that's far harder to pull off than an alternate version of the Capitol raid where they managed to get their hands on representatives.

This person, the GP, now seems to be actively spreading disinformation.

I caught them claiming a complaint about efficacy in the Pfizer vaccine was about safety, after they put me down to try to make sure I didn’t read the study. I read the study and you can go look at my response[1]. The tell of the troll is that he never comes back to finish arguments....

The fact that HN thinks they have a handle on the disinformation here is laughable. This site was featured in a New Yorker article, does not filter out obvious propaganda, and allows anyone to say anything as long as its cordial. To think they could combat nation state level attacks with two people is ridiculous. This is a soft target.

The only thing we can do is pay attention to what our eyes and ears tell us.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26480280

>The tell of the troll is that he never comes back to finish arguments....

Really? Perhaps people on HN have lives and dislike engaging with hostile actors on the Internet.

>after they put me down to try to make sure I didn’t read the study

If you think I was putting you down, I sincerely apologize. I simply meant that anyone who understands the science well should read it. Nothing more. The insight of the knowledgeable on contradictory information is most helpful in challenging times.

I am surprised you appear to have engaged in a vendetta based upon a misinterpretation.

Yet again you resort to troll tactics.

You have yet to come clean about the obvious disinformation you are spreading, and seek only to redirect the conversation to something interpersonal instead of factual.

Setting the interpersonal aside, How can one claim in good faith that they are representing the truth, when they demonstrably lie about the content of their citations to further their argument and refuse to reconcile with that?

State actor or not, you are using troll tactics to spread disinformation, and it is blatantly obvious. Receipts: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26480280

I think people can have wrongheaded beliefs without state actors being involved, and after the number of such accusations I've received myself I'm pretty skeptical of them.

That’s fair. State actor or not, I feel that I have proved that the account in question is using trolling tactics to spread vaccine disinformation.

That's not really incompatible with him just sincerely believing what he's saying. I'm not saying he's right because I think what he's writing is nonsense, but I doubt there's a master plan here.

This account is actively spreading disinformation. They are spreading FUD about vaccines and now about ANTIFA. They site spurious sources and they are not being properly flagged.

I’m amazed that they think that two moderators could combat nation states. Such hubris.