Young people overwhelmingly vote for the left in pretty much every country in the world. 

Well, I have theories. Social media kinda fostered a way of developing a 'one true truth', and any deviation leads to group exclusion. This was generally more a right-wing thing in the past, for instance church had people excluded even on slight disagreements.

What do you talk about? Historically the left is anti-authoritarian and that lead to massive splintering in many, many groups. Histroically (and that was in my lifetime as I am a bit older), it is said that the right collects the big man that shows the way, while the left is split in 100 groups and political parties, fighting with each other. The massive alignment of leftist groups is a pretty new thing and seems for me strongly connected to social media, which allowed to finetune ideas into a whole and easily find people disagreeing on even one point and excluding them.

Nah, this is a general error of thinking facts and science are determining politics. They never did and never do. Science describes the world as it is, politics is about shaping the world the way you want it to be. In the past often the right used this fallacy, talking about the *natural* way or whatever.

But we have to understand that different politics doesn't spring (mostly) from differences in understanding the world, but from differences in the goal on how the world should be. Facts can only help us decide if certain policies are *useful* and *effective* to reach that goal. Which currently the left is getting worse at. One example: there currently is a strong believe in the left that language and speech has major influence. Science is very reluctant here and doesn't really support this, at least not in the degree that many on the left claim it is. So, following the science would mean that all efforts to shape language in an attempt to shape society would be deemed ineffective policy and we should move to different policies. But I don't see the current left finding that conclusion (the left I remember from the 90s scoffed at the idea and wanted material change instead).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmZdGo6b5yA

So no, the left and the right are using science and facts the same way: emphasizing which fits their worldwiev, twisting or ignoring what doesn't.

Tober said:

"Not surprising. From a historic perspective the political left is more keen to emphasize the group, where the political right emphasizes the individual.
Social responsibility versus individual responsibility within a society. This means that the left is more likely to fall into groupthink."

Mnementh said:

"What do you talk about? Historically the left is anti-authoritarian and that lead to massive splintering in many, many groups. Histroically (and that was in my lifetime as I am a bit older), it is said that the right collects the big man that shows the way, while the left is split in 100 groups and political parties, fighting with each other. The massive alignment of leftist groups is a pretty new thing and seems for me strongly connected to social media, which allowed to finetune ideas into a whole and easily find people disagreeing on even one point and excluding them."

I am a bit older too

I think it doesn't matter where political vieuwpoints are, people are in general not keen on an authoritarian regime.

That being said, historically authoritarian regimes tent to mostly grow out of political left ideologies. From the German National Socialist party as a 1920 follow up to the German workersparty (a.k.a NAZI) to Poll Pot in Combodia, a Communist, just as Stalin, Lenin, Mao Zedong, etc.

All these came to power because they convinced the majority of their respective populations that the welfare of the group should be placed above all others, including individual rights. That the only purpose of the individual is to contribute to the benefit of the group. Every time dissenting vieuwpoints did not align with the groupthink where counteracted, from censorship to political imprisonment or worse. Or in a more modern sense, a call for 'cancellation' can be viewed as a step in that direction.

Identity politics is a form of groupthink. It tends to see society as a spreadsheet, grouping people together in buckets, based on few characteristics and assuming the people inside those buckets have their common distinct problems, desires and wishes. It is not unusual thinking this way to imagine these groups to have conflicting interest, which are then used against them in a political sense. Where in reality looking from an individual perspective most people want the same thing independent on what bucket they are thrown in too.

People that tend to lean politically right, are more opportunistic as is befitting centralizing the individual. As in 'collecting the big man'. If it seems opportune at the moment, could be. But 'the big man' is just as easily dropped as it seems opportune to do so too.

If you talk about these historical authoritarian regimes, it should be noted that major opposition to these (internal, not from other countries) often came from other leftist groups, which meant political cleanings often hit other leftists. Which is the point I am illustrating - even if a leftist group becomes authoritarian, it doesn't mean diverging leftist viewpoints existed. They did. But today social media leads everyone in one big pot, and some strategies to reject diverging ideas have lead to a strong alignment of leftist groups, which is historically new. The diverging leftist often still exist, but mostly outside social media and as social media is ubiquitous amongst young people  that also means the diverging leftist are often older.

You bring up an example that doesn’t help your point. “That language and speech have major influence” is by your own admission not factually incorrect, we just don’t know for sure to what extent it does. It also isn’t a left wing idea, but one pushed equally by the right when they find it convenient.

Either way, that is not equivalent to making factually incorrect statements like climate change isn’t real or isn’t mainly caused by human activity, or Donald Trump won the 2020 election, or vaccines don’t work, or the January 6th rioters were ANTIFA. That’s detached from empirical reality.

Pretty true. If you have a side that normalizes viewpoints that conflict with objective reality, naturally you have room for a wider variety of viewpoints.

"Opinions" such as "space is fake and gay" are just not something you find on the left.

True. There you find people who dont know what a woman is...

Possibly, but that is not exclusive to the left, the right also flip flops on what they think is the correct definition.

Thats because people on the left keep bringing birth defects and other rare illnesses into the argument. People with the XX chromosomes, people born with a vagina, people who can have babies, people who have a period through most of their lives etc are all correct. 

Yes I guess definitions are really easy to create if you ignore any counter examples. 

Mostly I think it has to do with whether gender and sex are different things. If they are then what defines a woman can be different from what defines a female as it is mostly social constructs. Personally my argument for this would be that practically speaking most times you make the call about who is a man or a woman it is not based on chromosomes or genitals because we don't have those on display. It's instead based on societal norms and secondary sexual characteristics that are more obvious to the casual observer. With that in mind, it is reasonable to separate those societal norms from the biological reality and define who is a woman based on those as it's the most useful definition. 

Reasonable minds can disagree on how a word should be defined, on the other hand we've got "Trump won 2020", "Vaccines give you autism", and "Jan 6th was antifa" which are not by any means the same kind of disagreements.