I get the impression this site is very left wing

It wasn't a purely economic argument; I touched on society. Liberals believe that everyone is an individual, and everyone is of equal value. They believe that people are naturally self-seeking and self-reliant, but that they are also altruistic. They believe that society is made up of individuals and so it is wrong to impose a collective will on societies. Liberals strongly support freedom of speech, and are not convinced there is ever a 'wrong' opinion. Liberals believe that people should be free to choose how they live their life and what they work towards, providing that it does not infringe upon the liberty of other people.

This is right wing. Left wing would be a negative view of human nature, meaning that humans need guidance to tell them what is right and how they should live their life.

Liberals have always been in favour of getting rid of unjust social hierarchies and inequalities

Liberalism and its close counterpart libertarianism can be left-wing or right-wing, though.

Liberals have always been in favour of getting rid of structures of domination (the patriarchy, institutional discrimination against people of different skin colours and sexual orientations, as well as the mistreatment of non-human animals).

;
This is absolute nonsense. Liberalism is by very definition right-wing, and libertarianism is the very pinnacle of right wing politics. There is nothing more right-wing than libertarianism, an ideology that advocates absolutely no government intervention in the markets or in people's private life, and basically no laws or boundaries. This ideology puts complete faith in people's individuality and nature.

What about market socialists or one nation conservatives? You can be right wing and support big government. Show me a right wing Republican who isn't Ron Paul and who wants to get rid of the american military complex.

Liberals have always been in favour of getting rid of unjust social hierarchies and inequalities - getting rid of structures of domination (the patriarchy, institutional discrimination against people of different skin colours and sexual orientations, as well as the mistreatment of non-human animals).

No, this is not correct. Liberals believe that inequality is natural, and that inequalities are a direct consequence of the different amounts of effort people are willing to work, and they see this as just. Here's a quote from William Graham, a classical liberal theorist:

'A drunkard in the gutter is just where he ought to be. Nature has set upon him the process of decline and dissolution by which she removes things which have survived their usefulness.'

And it's not just him, either. This is core liberal theory.

This is absolute nonsense. Liberalism is by very definition right-wing, and libertarianism is the very pinnacle of right wing politics. There is nothing more right-wing than libertarianism, an ideology that advocates absolutely no government intervention in the markets or in people's private life, and basically no laws or boundaries. This ideology puts complete faith in people's individuality and nature.

Ethics are based on emotions and moral intuitions; we didn't arrive at our current set of ethics through logical deduction.

And, to the alt-right, there are several reasons to prefer their own kind: survival of their genes and culture, and because perhaps they don't trust people of other races not to put their race first.

As the title says. I have a Theory as to why, it being a website for the millennial generation and as some of you may be aware, the millennial generation has been brainwashed by the liberal/leftist agenda since they were going to primary school. Hence why the younger generation think the way they do - liberal, overly compassionate to bad entities, no boarders, citizens of the world and terrified of offending anyone who isn't white.

I think you need to read more widely. The classical libertarians - Bakunin, Kropotkin, Proudhon, Rocker, Godwin and so on - were libertarian socialists. Libertarianism is about dismantling structures of domination and hierarchy that limit individual freedom, which is why these classical libertarians were in favour of abolishing the state, capitalism as well as religion.

The considerations themselves are illogical. What does it matter to the human race if animals die painfully or peacefully, as long as we can eat them? If you don't care about the survival of your genes, what do you care about? Happiness? Freedom? Where's the logic behind that? Where's the logic behind humans wasting their own resources, in order to "consider the interests" of lesser beings?

A rational being would ask: What is the real nature of the situation of myself among numerous others? Is it really rational for me to care more about what happens to me than to other people? Consider that each other person's wants are just as real to them - indeed, "just as real," period - as yours are to you. That you experience what happens to you differently than what happens to them is just a subjective illusion. Furthermore, your reference to yourself as "I" and to others as he or she is a grammatical illusion of relative application. There is not a difference in kind between an "I" versus a "he" or "she" like there is between circles and squares. A being who seeks objectivity must believe that the feelings of others as real and valid as her own, and that "There is no inherent specialness about 'my' feelings or desires."

Some people care about the survival of their genes, because they think their genes are superior. Others, because they think its their duty, to keep their genes in circulation, to help natural/artificial selection take its course.

An ideology that advocates dismantling the state and hierarchy doesn't sound very 'left-wing' to me at all, considering that left-wingers support big government and economic intervention.

If libertarians support abolishing the state, how can there be any other economic systems other than capitalism? Every other economic system requires government regulation.

They liked slavery. Slaves are private property you see. Liberal equality was often done through the prism of private property which as a socialist will tell you severely impacts actually getting to any meaningful notion of equality.

People of the same race share more of genes with each other, than people of other races.

Some people care about the survival of their genes, because they think their genes are superior. Others, because they think its their duty, to keep their genes in circulation, to help natural/artificial selection take its course.

If you don't care about the survival of your genes, what do you care about? Happiness? Freedom? Where's the logic behind that? Where's the logic behind humans wasting their own resources, in order to "consider the interests" of lesser beings?

How are the two things the same? Not running your life = not taking taxes?
And a government that does neither, is not a government...

Don't focus on labels, focus on policies: if someone says something you agree with, but identifies as "left-wing", should you say "aha! See, you're really right-wing"? No, just acknowledge the common ground and talk about ways to implement that policy.

banning certain products from advertising) are attempts at making life choices on people's behalf by controlling what they can do with their money. I don't see that as a legitimate use of government power.

Considering this entire thread is about what is classified as left-wing, the right thing to do is indeed to say 'Aha!'

And even if it wasn't, saying 'Aha!' would still be the right thing to do. Saying 'Forget about the labels! Focus on this instead' is just a slimy way to get out of a losing argument.

I'm just saying that you're the kind of person who would say "Aha!' regardless of the context.

You've not replied to my points about the definition of left-wing, your circular argument and alternatives to capitalism in a stateless society. If you want to focus on the arguments, let's do so.

How so?