From your use of the word "leftists", I suspect you and I wouldn't agree on much; however, on this point I agree with you. Someone above mentioned the "paradox of tolerance" and I think your observation fits perfectly with that. I feel strongly about many of the same things that BLM and MeToo does (just to give some concrete examples) but I don't think believing in those things necessitates erasure of people who think differently. Unfortunately you find a lot of the "erasure" sentiment out there and usually they are the loudest voices.
To be clear, by leftists I meant misguided diversity-advocates who had no trouble employing the exact things they claimed to be fighting (racism, sexism and intolerance) as long as it fit their cause. My bad for being imprecise.
I find opposing such hypocracy perfectly reasonable, but I can tell from the voting that the HN consensus is that they would rather leave this giant elephant untouched. In which case, you reap what saw.
I'm very much a leftist, and I agree that there is a problem with this. But being more precise is important, because there is a long tradition on the left for pushing for tolerance as well. Libertarianism started on the left.
Fittingly for this debate, the word "libertarian" was first used by the anarcho-communist Joseph Dejacques in attacking the anarchist Proudhon for his misogynistic views [1]. But unlike the "diversity-advocates" you complain about, Dejacques argues for diversity as a consequence of liberty, and argues for liberty as essential to the humanity of all.
Applying power over others to force diversity is the antithesis of this, and there is a major schism over this on the left just as there is between authoritarian and anti-authoritarian ideologies on the right too.
