Okay, benjipwns, I want to address your points fairly because you've insisted that you're here in good faith and want to have a legitimate conversation and I'm going to take you at your word.
You seem to genuinely consider yourself a "liberal" (a liberal is a center-left person who supports capitalism and retaining existing power structures, which you don't appear to be; you'd probably be more accurately described as a leftist) so I want to address your confusion as to why people keep describing you as a right-wing reactionary. Modern progressivism is largely based around deconstructing multiple different power structures: not just capitalism, but also patriarchy, institutional racism, and other forms of deeply systemic bigotry against marginalized groups. This "intersectional" approach to solving problems is, more or less, the backbone of the modern progressive movement.
Traditional leftism, on the other hand, is largely concerned only with capitalism and not intersectionality. Traditional leftism believes that socialism and the destruction of capitalism will result in the eventual destruction of all other forms of systemic bigotry without needing to take any further action.
As a typical example, if we look at two women, one white and one black, who are both low-income, the two leftist groups would propose different solutions for how to solve the systemic problems they face. The traditional leftist would argue that simply erasing capitalism will solve the problem. The intersectional leftist will agree that we need to dismantle capitalism, but that women face special discrimination that is unrelated to income that also needs to be addressed, and that the black woman in particular suffers even more forms of unique discrimination in every facet of society, and that simply passing economic justice reforms will not solve these problems.
In recent years, as the glaring faultlines in capitalism have become more apparent, many ideas associated with traditional leftism have become more popular with those on the right, such as white people living in rural or post-industrial areas (often mocked with the "economic anxiety" phrasing) who went for Donald Trump in huge numbers in 2016. These individuals support various aspects of traditional leftism, such as living wages, universal basic income, universal healthcare, and maybe even the complete dismantling of capitalism itself, but they somehow ended up voting for Donald Trump. This is because they (falsely) viewed Trump as a disruptor who would somehow shake up the system, economically speaking. It was very clear to them that Trump had no intention of addressing systemic racism, sexism, or homophobia, but they didn't care. Economic justice was their only concern, and the capitalist Hillary Clinton was obviously not going to solve that problem, so Trump was the next best choice.
Candidates like Andrew Yang and (to some extent, mostly pre-2018) Bernie Sanders follow this traditional leftist mold very closely. They are very concerned with economic justice, but largely unconcerned with other forms of systemic discrimination beyond occasional platitudes about fair policing or fair housing. These issues are important, but they all play back into the economic argument, that socialism is a magic cure-all for bigotry. Capitalism is on its way out; this much is obvious. It is not sustainable and it will be dead in the future. Therefore, the future political division in this country isn't between "capitalists" and "lite capitalists" or even between "capitalists" and "socialists," but rather between these two different factions of leftists. The intersectional leftists have become the new left wing, and the traditional leftists have begun allying with their new right-wing allies in pursuit of shared economic goals.
You may describe yourself as a liberal, or a leftist. You can vote for Andrew Yang. You can use whatever terminology to self-identify that you want, but at the end of the day your political goals are very clearly much more closely-aligned with the right than the modern left. It's said that you can know a lot about a person's politics by the issues they consider important, and your content and online presence make it very clear what you consider important. Random, cherrypicked tweets or forum posts about killing white people or "down with cis;" movies that have "forced diversity" or "political correctness;" online forms of redressing institutional grievance like "cancel culture;" and people who say mean or insulting things about men or other traditional status quo structures like the patriarchy. Your content is very clearly aimed at a reactionary right-wing audience and their new traditional leftist allies, because nobody on the actual left supports or believes any of these things anymore. Everyone who did is on the right now, even if they don't fully self-identify that way yet. There are various things about the modern left that bother me too, but I consider them inconsequential and irrelevant compared to the global threat of right-wing authoritarianism, and therefore don't bother wasting my time discussing them or forming alliances with my enemies to destroy them.
Probably the flashpoint that most constantly flares tensions between these two groups, and the content around which people like yourself have made their living, is the idea that media has an effect on our political outlook and views. Right-wing reactionaries and traditional leftists believe that it doesn't. Modern intersectional leftism believes that it does. When a movie like TLJ or Captain Marvel features diversity, people such as yourself argue that this diversity is meaningless because true progressive art cannot exist under a capitalist system. This is true only in an economic sense, but modern leftist theory (and a growing body of research) holds that these diverse representations boost self-esteem and confidence among marginalized groups and contribute to more positive views of marginalized people among the majority. It is almost inarguable that diverse media representation does, in fact, play a key role in helping to degrade systemic power structures.
People like you view yourself as gatekeepers for what does and does not count as proper diversity and representation, and you get angry when it is suggested that, as a white man, your opinion is not relevant on this issue. As I said before, I sometimes take issue with various aspects of modern leftism too, but I don't bother discussing it because I don't consider it as important as the "real issues." I know who my enemy is, and it's not "pink-haired women screaming about killing men." If you consider something like this to be a serious threat to society, rather than a humorous nuisance, you are not a progressive leftist, you are a right-wing reactionary.
I see that you ended up getting banned while I was typing this and therefore you probably can't read it. Hopefully you took enough screenshots of these conversations to get yourself another Youtube video. When you make that video and post it, describing how you've been made a victim of leftist authoritarianism, consider what your audience is and why they're agreeing with you. They're not agreeing with you because they're leftists looking to reform the system from within. They're agreeing with you because they are extremely bigoted right-wing reactionaries, and they're trying to get you on their side. And if you aren't already, you will be soon, unless you take a step back and examine your audience and the things that you think are serious issues in the world today.
