“The Democrats”, maybe not. “Leftists”, however defined, certainly did, and the difference might not be apparent, nor important, to the typical voter.

“Nazi” is used as a rhetorical device, a label to assign to anyone not conforming to a certain set of beliefs typically described as “woke” (see fediverse, especcially #FediBlock hashtag if you don't believe me). I took liberty to parrot that rhetoric, not to use it in the real meaning.

As long as this is dismissed as “ghost stories”, HN is still in denial phase. While the decision to censor the data is wrong, whatever we think about labels (people not agreeing with a set of categories can probably filter/tranform on their own), I think is important to realise, what moves the people who do such things, to get at least basic understanding.

Every tit for that is terrible I think. Whether funny or not, I think recognising the pattern and admitting "the other side" also was suppressed (wchichever way is the other side) would be the first step to deescalation.

Otherwise, right now DEI went through denial and is in anger.

It was and is clearly true. Many health organizations have style guides describing which words you should or should not use to describe various groups. See for example the American Cancer Society’s (https://www.cancer.org/content/dam/cancer-org/online-documen...) - picked just as the first nicely formatted Google result.

People lost their jobs because of this. The first widely published incident was “Donglegate”: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donglegate, but I'm sure there were earlier cases. Some other were not considered for the positions, because their DEI statement was not sufficiently affirming or whatever.

Those are not "few celebrities", and not a propaganda. This really happened, and understanding that this is a real issue might be the first step to understand why the pendulum is in full swing.