I don’t know what to do, you guys

I wonder if this is a reaction to Republican party politics of the last 20 years or so? They seem to speak with a single voice, even if that voice is usually saying stupid, hateful, regressive things. That they march in such lockstep is probably their greatest asset as a party, and I really don't know if it's something to be emulated or not (leaning toward 'not', though).

From my experience at one of the elite public universities:

Something I noticed as a student who spent time around activists (I wouldn't say I am one--I fundamentally agree with many pretty far-left social and economic ideas but I didn't participate in marches/action and was only occasionally involved in their official groups) was that there were sometimes people who used left wing politics and the language of intersectional feminism as a bludgeon to silence any critics and generally prove their superiority. Some groups were kind of dominated by this type of person, and others weren't--it certainly wasn't universal.

The thing is, I saw similar things during my short time in a pretty right leaning debate club, just over different issues. Instead of not speaking the language of intersectional feminism, it was not speaking the language of right leaning economics, but the mechanisms seemed to be the same--an in-group who knew the language and biwords used it to enforce the group's shared values on those outside of that in-group who were interested in joining.

The realization that I had was really that there are people at every point of the political spectrum and in every philosophical movement who police orthodoxy and use it as an excuse to be disrespectful. It happens in the center as well: the people who see the far left and right as crazy demagogues and ignore/berate anyone who uses their language, regardless of their point.

The solution (for the left and the right groups) is probably to demand a certain basic amount of respect from and for other people in your movement. That doesn't mean "let them trample all over you," but instead "When someone seems genuinely interested in your movement, direct them to educational materials." In the cases given, the appropriate thing to do would probably have been to interrupt and explain either why something might be offensive or 'wrong', but defend the person being attacked not on the basis of what they said but on their personhood. And, of course, to not tolerate rabid orthodoxy at the expense of basic compassion for others.

As a side note I wouldn't conclude from this post or the occurrences that I saw that "political correctness" (of either the left or right variety) is totally out of hand or wrongheaded or invalid. As other commentators on the internet have pointed out, a lot of what gets labeled as "abusive leftist social-justice-warrior political correctness" is actually "treating people who are different from you with respect." If someone regularly says things like "Gays are terrible aberrations in the eyes of God" or "All Muslims aren't civilized", then it's fair to conclude that they probably do not respect Gays or Muslims as groups of people, no matter how much they claim otherwise.

"Academic politics is so vicious because the stakes are so low." - Henry Kissinger. He'd both been on the Harvard faculty and was Secretary of State, so he knew.

The real trouble with the political correctness thing about sex is that it's a distraction from the real political issues - money, and who gets how much. Most of what government does and can do is about money. The US right has its own problems with sex, but it's a distraction there, too: "God, guns, and gays". None of which the U.S. Government can do much about.

Occupy ran into this. Occupy leaves behind one lasting achievement - the identification of "the 1%" as a problem. They never had a coherent agenda. Basic truth about dealing with political leaders - don't ask them to solve your problem. The most that will get you is a study. You must have all the homework done up to the "sign here" point. Ask any lobbyist.

Thought for today: should people be paid more than they are worth as purely economic units? If not, should incomes go down as automation gets better?

This is an odd view. Right wing politics in the US claims to lean toward reducing/dismantling SS and the welfare state, radically changing immigration and education policy. (In reality they are prevented from doing this, of course.) In contrast, left wing politicians just want to throw more money at the same things.

"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate"