I think your heart is in the right place, but I also think you fail to see that might makes right. You can only win when those with liberal (in the social contract sense) beliefs have might, when liberals can credibly provide consequences for conservative attempts at dominance.

I think you understand this on a subconscious level. Syndicalism (feel free to correct me, I am probably ignorant here) is an ideology that laborers should collectively bargain as a show of force or political violence. You don't unionize to reach "consensus." Syndicalism is consistent with the 2nd amendment. If you don't have a strong belief of the 2nd amendment and a good idea who the 2nd amendment is to be used against, you probably have a contradiction within your belief system.

Anarchism is a politically immature ideology that is self-contradictory in the same way that communism and libertarianism are. Anarchism has no answer to a foreign invader or a genocidal next door neighbor. Anarchism is a contradictory ideology at a philosophical level. Anarchism denies institutions.

Ukrainians did not get to decide whether they were at war. War was thrust upon them. Trans people don't get to decide whether they are at war with American conservatives or not. American conservatives have already declared that war.

I don't take issue with anti-trans viewpoints being called degenerate. I don't take issue with calling federalist society court packing degenerate. I don't take issue with calling Clarence Thomas degenerate for saying "this is a lynching" in response to sexual abuse allegations against him. I don't take issue with the catholic polity protecting their priests from consequences being called degeneracy. I don't take issue with calling people who force rape victims into giving birth degenerates.

Your post, on a philosophical level, amounts to the idea that in the game of prisoners dilemma, one should always cooperate. You shouldn't do unto others what you wouldn't want done to you. You shouldn't have rules for others, that you aren't bound to yourself.

This is the paradox of tolerance. "If I do not cooperate, I cannot expect someone to cooperate with me." That's true and seems like quite the paradox.

However the social contract of tolerance says "If someone does not cooperate with me, then I must not cooperate with them."

It's important to understand that in the game of prisoners dilemma, if you let defection be a winning strategy, you will create more people with a strategy of defection. So if you have a rule of "violence is bad," but someone uses violence against you, is it a "rules for thee but not for me" situation to want to use violence back?

If you have "rules for us," and someone violates them, how do you propose dealing with that?

I would encourage you to play this game and mediate on the consequences of it for your political belief system: https://ncase.me/trust/

> These approaches suggest that whomever is making those calls has figured out the 'one true value system' and if we all just adhere to that system, it'll be sunshine and roses.

I think you believe in speaking truth to power (which is respectable and important), but I think you are mis-applying it.

> how much choice does someone born in Iran have about being Muslim?

How much choice did a 1930s German have in terms of becoming a Nazi? Does it matter that much once the furnaces are loaded? Are you trying to argue that a Muslim decapitating a woman for getting raped is an innate quality?

I think you believe in speaking truth to power, but I'm not sure you believe in the idea of objective truth. Without objective truth how can truth be spoken to power?

I think you would find Timothy Snyder to be a very interesting speaker who you agree with on a values level, but will alter the way you think about things by questioning the frame through which you analyze things.

His readings of "On Tyranny" is probably a good place to start (this is lesson 10: believe in truth): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdHkkfB_7X0