Living on the left, I am curious as to what world my people are fighting for. From my perspective, they want a hypermodern, cosmopolitian world where everyone is a platcel hikikimori. A platcel is a portmanteau of platonic incel and simply means someone without friends. And without religion or community and living in a Scandanavian minimalist studio apartment where they work remotely and order their food delivered. Their favorite religion is Buddhism and that religion lacks the classic Middle-Eastern hospitality of my religion in favor of the solitude, silence, and Vulcan stoicism of theirs.
There is an antinatalist philosophical argument that goes like the absence of pain outweighs all joy therefore existence is not worth it which is, arguably, Buddhism in a nutshell. A Middle-Eastern bazaar-style culture with its smells, sweat, gnarly-faced strangers, and creepy extended live-in family members has so much ethically wrong with it. Think of the catcalling, the pickpockets, the con artists, the hobos wanting money, the disorderly conduct by crazy hobos! The police will do nothing and there is no HR! That is the swamp in which my religion was born. Whatever love exists in the greasy streets of a Levantine slum is not worth the ethical world of a Buddhist monastery.
I am, by no means, justifying the larceny and misogyny of the above paragraph but stating that love requires tolerating it. In other words, that love for the human family is worth pain. They’ll scream about what they’re against and all they’re for is a world where what they’re against has stopped. They are not for healthy, caring, and loving relationships as long as they’re consensual. They will defend BDSM as a valued sexual minority because virtue ethics don’t exist and schadenfreude at someone’s suffering is not a vice. Philosophically, with their Lockean and Rawlsian exclusive emphasis on negative and positive liberties, the absence of sin is the only virtue. If the absence of sin is the only virtue then human extinction is the maximum ethics and, aside from that, universal loneliness is.
If every slight is a boundary violation and cannot be overlooked or forgiven then there is no love. In fact, love is contrary to that system of ethics. The teleology of Buddhism is the abolition of suffering through the erasure of the individual but the teleology of Christianity is a universal fraternity borne of love of all individuals of one another and that it is worth suffering for. While that tolerance of minor misconduct is certainly justified by both Buddhism and Christianity, the former out of a compassion divoerced from fraternity, and the intolerance of it is mostly bourgeois hypersensitivity, the teleology of the contemproary left, influenced by Buddhism, and which justifes their bourgeois sensibilities, is that of nonexistence manifested as loneliness.