And on that polarity, Narz is correct: it's the censoriousness of the one side that drives people to the other side.
"someone telling me to not be a racist made me make an actively worse choice" demonstrates two things (minimum, possibly more)
- They have no skin in any proverbial game. It doesn't matter to them (on a macro scale it might, in some measurable way, but in the ways that immediately matters to them in their daily life, it does not).
- They don't have convictions or morals beyond being selfish. Ultimately. Selfishness drives a lot more human behaviour than we give it credit for, and I'm not here to make a derail out of it (short version is: good and bad, but we're shaped by environment for reasons that often run counter to that - being a better person is still both reasonable and achievable for people out of the gate. Yes, that's the short version).
Also, the right are absolutely censorious. They just do it over things you wouldn't think it would be important to note. Maybe things you don't recognise as things that should push people away. And that is why the core of "censoriousness" is, at its core, a "both sides are bad but the left is worse" argument, which is very funny because the way your country is leaning, you might want to consider the amount of people leaning the way Trump is, vs. the mythical minority of swing voters that are decided by "somebody called a racist a racist".
And on top of
that, it never stops to consider the people pushed to be disenfranchised (on the left). Disenfranchisement is always the voter's fault (because they're progressive), censoriousness is always not the voter's fault (because the cause is progressive).
It's tiring. And it won't work out for y'all as a tactic. The worse the scolding of progressives gets, the worse the return will be. Which is the height of irony, because this tangent came about because of alleged scolding of the right, by progressives.
EDIT -
@Sommerswerd
I see your apology and recognise it! I appreciate where it's coming from and the clarity with which you said it. I ultimately don't think it's necessary, in a good way. Everyone I've ever known, and that includes folks on this forum, have always voted (when shared with me) the "right" way, when it counts. But I understand what you're saying with this, and I respect it.
To me, let's say this happens. I have no statistics, I can't speak for anything. But statistically, it must be a blip on the radar. To imagine the cross-section of people in any specific community, so needled after years of interactions that they then choose to vote against their own interests in a specific way? I'm sure it happens, but I think it's more likely to happen based on tactical / strategic lines (e.g. when the vote basically doesn't count) vs. out of pure spite. And in both cases, the margins are going to be low.
So low that while some races can absolutely be that close, there will be other mitigating factors that have easier fixes (however hypothetical; better campaigning, better policy decisions, etc, et al) than a handful of people having a decade or more of forum history (or similar).
I just wish people who have gone right-leaning, some very overtly, had the presence of mind to recognise that. Instead they're much happier just using it to point out how bad "the wokes" are, instead of realising what they're caught up in (disclaimer for readability given quotes in this post: not aimed at Gori). I'm pretty far-left, I'm fed up with a ton of things, and yet I've voted in nearly every election I've been eligible for. I think I spoiled a single ballot, once, where there were literally no good choices, and no margins for change (local elections, overall % didn't matter and wasn't going to).
Dude WTH? 
Zombies?!?
Spot on.
