But I am confused by your description of Nazis as ultraconservative. They were quite the opposite: they were on the political left, closely aligned with the progressive movement in the United States - from whom they got much of their race theory and - more importantly - ideas about what to do about racial differences.

You are indeed thoroughly confused. Just when I thought I had encountered the maximum level of right-wing stupidity here with Hajduk's claim that the COVID pandemic was solely caused by a single batsoup-eating dumbfuck, and your belief that people can simply will themselves free from oppressive social constraints, you come around and top it off with this blithering nonsense. I just have no words for the level of sheer ignorance expressed here, to say nothing of the shamelessness with which you uttered it.

As I explained to Eeyore yesterday:

Like most people, you are ignorant to the basic, technical definition of political conservatism. Firstly, you need to use your sociological imagination and conceive of human societies as complex, integrated, stable systems, not unlike biological organisms. In its broadest sense, conservatism refers to systemic elements that function to maintain (conserve) the status quo. However, since the formation of the first class societies some 10,000-12,000 years ago fostered widespread economic and general social inequality, a problem we are still fighting today, conservatism has been characteristically inegalitarian; its function has thenceforth been to preserve this thoroughly unequal state of affairs.

Basically, in this latter, more narrow sense, "conservatism" is synonymous with "anti-egalitarianism." Accordingly, since the Nazi regime, as a dictatorship, was characteristically anti-egalitarian, it was quintessentially conservative.

While it is true that racist pseudoscience largely originated in the US, like all biodeterminist ideas it is intrinsically conservative, as I continue here from my above post:

Biodeterminism is conservative in both the broad and more narrow senses described above. It functions to mislead people into thinking that social inequalities are "natural," immutable givens resistant to change through progressive political action, and to divert attention away from the true (sociocultural, political-economic) origins of these social problems. Basically, this ideology is a form of systemic self-preservation that bolsters inequality.

Please provide evidence that this pseudoscience was associated with an American progressive movement.

I'm absolutely in favor of freedom of speech. It is the only way by which an aggrieved party can appeal their case to the public, and to prevent that speech is an assault on both the aggrieved party and the right of the public to know and judge the facts for themselves.

Though freedom of speech is generally a good ideal, this is not to say that it should not have any restrictions whatsoever. Just like there is good reason to prohibit death threats and verbal assault, we also must suppress the organization and speech of socially harmful groups including ultraconservatives. The determination of which groups are harmful must be made on an objective, scientific basis, not on subjective whims.

That is true for us, just as it is true for actual conservatives

Hold your horses there. Given your profound political ignorance, you are in no position to be proclaiming who actual conservatives are.

I do realize, of course, that historically conservatives also often made use of censorship - there are very few groups that have not engaged in censorship when they had the power to do so.

I know you do not know what leftism is, but I will ask anyway: Which left-wing movements have promoted the unreasonable censorship of harmless speech?

We've been trying to get platforms like Reddit to stop censoring us for a very long time. In fact, Reddit used to be better than average in this regard - until its administration was pushed into censoring us.

Might you have some sort of reliable timeline for when this occurred?

I think it has become clear that until the public decides to value freedom of speech there isn't much we can do.

What a craven, defeatist attitude. This perfectly exemplifies why conservatives are such a bane to the movement (and society in general).

Clearly, we can contribute to the public discussion here in a manner supportive of policies that grant us the freedom to present our case. Of course, given that we do not want to restore the ultraconservative subs that were banned for an empirically-justified cause, our approach has to be nuanced. For instance, people might claim that giving pedos a platform will increase the incidence of adult-child sexual interactions. In response, we could demand evidence for this. Additionally, we can note how, while the violent actions of right-wing extremists are self-evidently unethical, whether said sexual interactions are harmful is not so obvious and requires some extra thought; by fundamentally distinguishing the two, we may have a chance to appeal to the more reasonable among antipeds.

Your assessment that our hands are mostly tied here is bunk.