I'm not absolving anything. I'm not downplaying anything. I don't care enough to make an argument one way or another. I'm simply saying that motives should count for something when making grandiose claims about who the worst person in all history is.
Yes, they're aware. They're also aware that ML types will support Russia regardless, because no evil is too great so long as it even mildly inconveniences the West.
I understand where you're coming from and agree in principle; however, I stated that the issue is with common parlance, which very much does include authoritarians among leftists. The Wikipedia article you linked even says so under the subsection: Types, where it includes Maoism. Perhaps I should stop referring to such as leftists so as not to normalize that perception, but it is already so and would make having a conversation with people far more difficult if I were speaking from a reference point that most people don't share.
I view that as wishful thinking. They're leftists authoritarians. I know it's uncomfortable to think we may share a side of the political specrtum with such people, but to deny it is to ignore the problem in the same way right-wingers did with the fascists (right-wing authoritarians) who now dominate their ranks in at least the U.S and Italty. However, unlike the far right, they're usually socially progressive; at least western leftists are. Perhaps the similarities ML types have with fascists can be best explained by horseshoe theory.
However, I'm open to the idea that our common political parlance is insufficient in this matter. I'd much prefer a political spectrum defined by rationalism/humanism/critical theory vs the alternative embodied by lunatics of every stripe and philosophy, political, religious, or otherwise. Perhaps that's what you meant by disassociating from them.
I want one with her going from her seat on her plane to the onboard bathroom, in a plane...