Yes, I made two slightly contradicting points, to see which one was wrong.
Thanks for you response.

But no, I asked which political camp caused more deaths by using their voices to influence others. Which is an unfair metric, since not every camp has the same amount of members and not all targets of online opinions are in the same way resilient.

<edit>
On second thought, the original problem in the article was that people voice their opinions on a book they did not read. I responded here by voicing some possible opinions without knowing all the facts: Is the author in the right or wrong? Is he a scientist that was cancelled due to political outrage, or does some argument against the book have merit? Is he part of a privileged elite of white old men, or did, as you claim, the privileged cancel culture destroy a rightous man out of spite and ignorance? I honestly have no clue, probably none of these.

History is the process of reinterpreting old evidence in the thinking of your current generations' values, too - objectively, every single author surely is flawed. The scientific process should be upheld, so the question for me is, if a free scientific press is damaged, in the US at least, by thinking bans? I am not from the US, but here, everyone that says "is one even still allowed to say" ends the sentence with "that other skin colors are inferior to mine", but usually hides it with "I was born into riches, I don't share with foreigners", and still actually voices their "now-forbidden" opinion.

That's why I replied to this simple "cancel culture" post instead of discussing the posting, about which I have no additional information.
</edit>

(Actually, comparing just the numbers for the self-harm subset would even "objectively" be unfair when having a far larger number of deaths through more direct means. In the EU, after the '80s, right-winger kill people while left-wingers commit other crimes but mostly stopped with that. So we would need to do a 100-year regression or something - last I checked after Paris in 2015, RAF killed more people than the al quaida in Europe. [Count of any terror attacks per year here: https://de.statista.com/infografik/5378/terrorattacken-in-we..., death tolls are now pretty close though - and blowing up north stream pipelines is probably not in there, since "terror" by most-probably-G9 states is mostly not in any statistics since WE don't do terror, since 1945, by subjective definition]
So I am counting civilian movements only, unless we want to count left-wing-ish stalin/lenin vs. right-wingers Hitler et al.)

Or, in the words of ChatGPT for that original, non-edited content:

Thank you for your response. I recognize that my comments were slightly conflicting and I made them to see which one was incorrect.
*I now understand that it is not possible to compare the harm caused by speech on either side, as the number of individuals affected and their levels of resilience vary greatly.*
[Edit: wow, chatGPT actually got that right. I was making comparisons through an objective lens, because 1. That is what utilitarians and to some extent rationalists, do, and 2. b/c online I am way more into QAnon/Querdenken/Lateral Thinking/Trolling than in real life, where I hate the faulty science and reasoning of these people with pre-disposed opininos. But I still am liable to make the same mistakes. I am no Carl Sagan. Yet.]

I also recognize that comparing the numbers of self-harm incidents caused by speech would not be a fair metric. The number of deaths caused by direct means is far greater and would make any such comparison inherently unfair. Additionally, it would be difficult to accurately compare the harm caused by different political ideologies over the course of 100 years or more, as the definition of terrorism and the statistics surrounding it have changed over time. For this reason, I will limit my analysis to movements and actions taken by civilians, rather than terrorist organizations.