“you don’t know anything about me, including whether I am a conservative.”
Granted. Change “you guys” to “those guys (and you only if you are one).”

“I could very well be a liberal who is complaining about the ineffective state of liberalism and the left.”
Possible. Unlikely for reasons to be given later.

“Or I could be an independent who is equally critical of both parties.”
Which would make you functionally conservative because both sides don’t deserve equal blame.

“So please stop making assumptions and accusing me of hypocrisy.”
Granted, though your examples smell like right-wing talking points. Those guys (and you, if you are one) say the same things over and over and over… So if you walk like a conservative and quack like a conservative, people are going to assume you’re a conservative.

“It is not a generally acceptable response to ignore a point, responding only with accusations of the other side doing the same thing. For example: what happened to Bret Weinstein, a leftist professor by the way, is wrong. It is a textbook example of leftist activists “going low” and them bringing a gun not a knife. So your only defense of this is “university professors are attacked all the time… primarily by conservatives,” .””how come you guys hate universities,” and “how come you guys never give a shit about universities unless it furthers your agenda?” You didn’t say anything in response to Bret Weinstein specifically.”

My point is that people attack college professors all the time, and one example doth not a trend make. But keep in mind:

1. This is one of the data points that made make me think you’re a victim of right-wing media poisoning — the word “leftist” is a pejorative.
2. My main point wasn’t to say the left never brings a gun now, only that they didn’t used to.
3. The US of A is 350 million wacky people, and anything you can think of is happening somewhere. Anecdotes aren’t significant. Individual events are data points, not proof.
4. A systematic attack on university professors — such as the one conservatives have been engaged in for many years — is significant. A few cases here and there don’t speak to a societal trend. This particular professor may have been wronged. It may even have been egregious. But lots of professors are wronged in ways large and small every day — why not focus on a case in North Carolina, where conservative trustees overrode the granting of tenure to a respected Black woman professor? Why this particular case?

“I am not defending the Republican Party. But since you compare…how many House Leaders have they had, since Nancy Pelosi was first elected minority leader? Democratic leaders tend to stay in positions of power for life, while Republicans rotate in and out. Personally I think the Republicans have the better and more egalitarian strategy here. NOTE this is not talking about their ethics.”

I’m not sure it’s a strategy. GOP leaders in the House mostly leave because they are run out.

1. Ethics are vital — GOP leaders tend to change because they are unethical (see Gingrich, DeLay, Hastert).
2. Others quit because the party turned on them (Armey, Boehner) or decided to leave politics (Ryan).

That doesn’t read like like strategy. Besides, who are either of us to dictate who the party leaders are?

1. Pelosi has led the Dems since 2003, Mitch McConnell has led the GOP in the Senate since 2006. Not that different.
2. Chuck Schumer has led the Senate Dems since 2016, a shorter time than McCarthy has led the House GOP (since 2014).

I don’t think your example is particularly relevant. Pelosi wins because she’s smarter and tougher than anybody else. Ditto for McConnell. McCarthy got the job even though he’s a blithering idiot.

Politics is annoying.

I wouldn’t mind some new blood, but only if they can come up with somebody better at a job at which she excels.

“Aziz Ansari engaged in a consensual casual sexual relationship, and the woman posthumously accused him of rape. He has said in multiple interviews that he is deeply emotionally traumatized by what happened.”

1. “Posthumously” means after death. I don’t think that’s the word you want.
2. I don’t think Ansari was accused of rape at all, was he?
3. The woman has testified she was also traumatized. Is it impossible that she’s the one telling truth?
4. Based on what I know of men, he probably did what he was accused of but didn’t really understand why people got so upset — that’s how men tend to treat women. If you don’t believe it, ask some. You don’t hear “men are pigs” for no reason.
5. The difference is nowadays, women are striking back. Do they go too far sometimes? Yes. I’m not convinced Al Franken should have been forced out, either.
6. Is it surprising women are angry, given the brutally inhumane treatment they’ve been forced to tolerate for hundreds of years? Not at all.
7. In any correction, there is always an overcorrection at first. Men have always gotten the benefit of the doubt in the past. Now that’s changing, so sometimes men will be treated unjustly…like women have been up until now.

“But where is the regard from the Left, about his feelings, safe spaces, etc.?”

1. Anyone who believes he committed sexual assault isn’t going to care about his feelings much. That’s how it goes.
2. This is one of the data points that made make me think you’re a victim of right-wing media poisoning — you apparently have no idea what a “safe space” is, but you’re using it as a pejorative.

“Even acknowledgement of him as a human fucking being?”
That’s how America treats those accused of crimes. Go ask any Black person who’s ever interacted with the justice system. I don’t like it, but it’s not just Ansari. (Again, why obsess on this case?)

Oddly, that attitude is primarily a byproduct of the right. (“Law and order” and “victims rights” come to mind.) The energy aimed at humane treatment of suspects and criminals exists almost solely on the left. Weird. It’s almost like two things can be true at the same time.

I’m more worried about, for example, the (mostly red) states where they ignore exculpatory evidence and execute possibly innocent men.

“When political groups are no longer able to see the humanity in someone, they have lowered themselves into the sewer.”
True dat. Like the near-unanimous rejection by the right of the humanity of my gay friends and colleagues. That’s millions of people, not just one. Or at CPAC, where they called all Democrats evil, demonic pedophiles. Again, trends vs. anecdotes.

But in the Ansari case, it isn’t a political group, it’s the Twitter mob. I hate all the Twitter mobs, left, right, and sideways. But they are out there.

Does that clarify things at all?