The far-left will let their view of the world (specifically, the lens of 'oppressor' and 'oppressed') to guide their method of decision making. Despite the basic idea of fighting injustice being a fundamentally moral concept, they will allow their view of oppressor and oppressed to supersede whatever moral concerns there may be with any given action.
For example, when asked about the idea of 'de-colonisation' - in particular with respect to the idea of 'settler-colonialism' - they will say that all violence is justified to remove the settlers. Their logic is that their very presence in the land, living where they are, is itself an act of violence against the original inhabitants of a place. So when asked whether or not native Americans murdering children, or slaves
literally beheading babies was justified in the name of de-colonisation, their answer will be 'yes'.
An action simply being immoral regardless of what context may surround it is an alien and foreign concept to a member of the far-left.
What I'm saying here actually ignores the default (though certainly valid) ideological criticisms of the far-left in terms of their ultimate goals and whether or not they are achievable. Their method of viewing the current state of the world alone is flawed enough to turn them into psychopaths.
As for why these ideas are so common among the modern far-left, particularly in Western countries - I blame people like Noam Chomsky and their specific fixation on settler-colonialism, and how those ideas infected places like university campuses. That's not to say that these ideas are somehow foreign or out of line with the default ideology, it's more a question of why they're specifically popular now.
schizopost about how the modern left got taken over by idpol
Both the idpol based left and the more legitimate (meaning, ideologically pure) far-left are equally as retarded as each other.
