no. 1173

The right wants homogeny.

The left wants diversity.

And this is why there’s no seeing eye to eye. These two objectives are fundamentally incompatible. They cannot be simultaneously achieved.

The right wants uniformity; cultural, religious, racial, ideological. One way of being that applies to everybody. A strict social hierarchy. And a singular order controlled by those who are believed to have the most authority.

Diversity disrupts the social order… and that’s why it’s seen as a threat. 

The left, by contrast, desires pluralism. They don’t want to be forced to conform to a single identity. They believe it should be their right to govern their own moral template. All they are asking for is dignity and equality. 

That’s why the right doesn’t just oppose ideas on the left. It opposes the existence of people on the left. Queer people. Trans people. Immigrants. Religious minorities. Political dissidents. Their presence alone is seen as an act of provocation and a violation of natural law. They are treated like a manifestation of instability. And an attack on God’s order. 

The truth is that the anger from the people on the left is a natural reaction to legislation, policing, surveillance, deportation, violence, and criminalization based on identity. When people are told they don’t belong, their existence itself a violation, that their families are illegitimate, and their culture, history, and spiritual traditions are a problem… anger is not radical. It’s reasonable and proportionate. In the least. 

The whole process creates one giant cycle. 

The right initiates harm and the left responds. The response is subsequently framed as the actual offense. Self-defense is called “aggression”. Boundary-setting is “intolerance”. Refusal to assimilate gets labeled “extremism”. When marginalized groups protest police violence, the initial harm is minimized while the protest is called a riot. There is no demonstration quite enough. When queer communities resist laws targeting their existence, they’re accused of “pushing an agenda.” When immigrants object to being caged or deported, they’re framed as ungrateful and told to leave… or called dangerous. When women assert the right to independence, they’re accused of destroying family values. When educators teach history about the harms we have committed, they’re accused of indoctrination.

The pattern is always the same. A scapegoat is chosen. Harm occurs. Resistance follows. Resistance is treated like the problem. The right makes sweeping moral claims disparaging those they are harming. 

“Look how angry they are”

“Look how divisive they are”

“Look how violent they are”

This framing erases the original coercion. It paints dominance as neutral.

Then the right accuses the left of being unwilling to coexist. But genuine coexistence isn’t actually on the table. So when the left refuses (or is unable, by virtue of their identity) to assimilate…when it insists on visibility, autonomy, and legal protection… that refusal is framed as hostile. Refusing to disappear is called an act of aggression.

The right calls the left “divisive” while pushing policies that restrict or deny their right to exist. Calls for inclusion are labeled censorship. While bans and crackdowns are seen as “order.” It’s why the right insists it’s being persecuted by the very people it is trying to eliminate. The right claims to be defending peace while demanding unrestricted control. The left is blamed for conflict… simply for existing.

And over time, this framing conditions the public to see control as stability. Resistance as chaos. And domination as order. It teaches people to side with power instinctively, even when that power is openly violent to the very groups it is supposed to protect.

The whole “both sides” narrative is insane, the symmetry of oppression is a lie, and calling people divisive for refusing to disappear is bullshit. What we are actually witnessing is one side is demanding homogeny… and the other is refusing to disappear.