These “hacktivists” are simply left-wing criminals that need to be brought to justice by three-letter agencies. Just like we have seen with the aggressive, militant actions of decentralized anonymous groups (antifa, youth collectives, etc) in the physical world, these criminals don’t want to allow any speech or thought that disagrees with their own. Hence their attacks on Parler, Epik, and so on. Let’s not try to paint their actions in some virtuous paint of activism. These criminals have no place in a lawful society that holds liberal values.
They will never be brought to justice, since they are another arm of the state. These groups are a way of doing what the powers that be want to be done while having some plausible deniability.
>8. The enemy is both weak and strong. “[…] the followers must be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
Well, for fascists it's often true because they choose enemies that are actually simply weak (as having shadowy enemies that can be portrayed as both weak and strong is necessary for fascism). The state is not weak at all, and it is indeed often incompetent. I think your argument is simply overfitting.
> you're free to publish your propaganda but not without opposition
Not without illegal criminal acts you mean? You’re using euphemisms to excuse authoritarian actions by anti free speech digital thugs.
> Left-ish people are among the most tolerant people your can find, unless you tolerate intolerance. That's a hard line.
I’m sure this moral certainty sounds virtuous to you, but it is simply intolerant in the end. The use of malleable and subjective opinions as purity tests doesn’t make you right and doesn’t make these criminal actions ethical or moral.
