Are hyper-liberals secretly ultra-conservative?

In the comments to the post about the moral orientation of the UCC school shooter, the topic of SJW morality came up. A commenter disagrees with the view that liberals and libertarians operate on a moral basis of "avoid harm / provide care" and "fairness / justice," and are numb or color-blind to the other moral bases of loyalty, authority, and purity (in Haidt's terms).

He tries to re-interpret SJW morality as not so distant from conservative morality:

"Purity? See how SJWs try to go out of their way to stay away from bad influences/shut down hints of dissent with the reasoning being that they feel gross/icky/violated/disgusted by having them there. Authority? Notice how well disciplined they are when doing offensives against organizations for not being SJW enough."

SJWs are hyper-liberals, not conservatives in disguise. There's a persistent trend among libertarians and alt-right people to try to re-interpret liberals so that they are the REAL racists, the REAL sexists, the REAL puritans, etc. They aren't -- they're the hyper-liberals that they straightforwardly appear to be.

Trying to re-paint a bunch of practicing degenerates, or vocal enablers of degeneracy, as a bunch of puritans is not just stupid and confusing, but a massive derailing of where conservatives ought to be pushing, theoretically and practically. The only point of such a derail is for the re-interpreter to max their stats for COUNTER-INTUITIVENESS.

The contrarian view talks about SJW intolerance of dissenting views as though they found them disgusting -- yet they do not make disgusted facial expressions when they hear dissent. As hyper-liberals, disgust is not something they are very capable of feeling, let alone expressing. Instead, they feel anger, and the faces they make are variations on the angry face.

We don't have to take them at their word when they denounce something as "disgusting" -- the actual emotion being expressed is anger, the face they make comes from anger.

Notice the difference between indignation -- "How dare somebody have a different view from mine? How disgusting!" -- and feeling contaminated -- "You can't go anywhere in public these days without having to smell some BO-radiating foreigner, or risk catching AIDS when some queer is coughing his lungs out in the checkout line".

Indignation conveys no sense of looming threat of contagion, no vulnerability to danger. Indeed it's based on a sense of invulnerability, of superiority. Calling attention to pollution or desecration, however, relies on the listener feeling vulnerable to such a threat, and is more like sounding a warning to prevent the contagion.

The same goes for "authority" among hyper-liberals. They are obviously not authoritarians, or they would submit themselves to whatever they considered a higher authority. Obedience implies a chain of command, and each level doing their part for the greater well-oiled functioning of the superorganic whole -- both giving orders to those below and carrying out those from above.

SJWs and other hyper-liberals do not form hierarchies with differing levels of authority. Rather, their group consists of an undifferentiated mass of followers of a set of principles or code of conduct, whose motivational power does not derive from the authority of a leader, an elite cadre of leaders, or a nested hierarchy of leaders.

They don't even reach the minimal form of authority where there's a single guru and his group of followers who are exactly the same among themselves regarding how much authority they have, yet who all do the guru's bidding.

When the SJW harangues other people to behave a certain way, it isn't because they believe they have a position of authority over the others. It's based on the assumption that everyone -- the SJW, the SJW's fellow travelers, plus the others being harangued -- has to adhere to a universal set of principles and codes of conduct. Something abstract, not "what our leader / hierarchy of leaders tells us to do".

They have completely leveled the hierarchy, so that everyone has equal authority -- or in other words, no authority. That's why they don't speak and act as though they had authority that others have to obey, in a leader / follower fashion. Rather, they nag, harass, and shame other people to adhere to the common code. Nagging, harassing, and shaming are things you do to your equals in the authority pyramid -- you don't get to nag your superior, and a superior doesn't nag his inferior but gives them the orders.

It's like one great big clique of seventh-grade girls, who have no hierarchy and where constant nagging and shaming prevail in a climate of anarchy.

The problem for SJWs and other hyper-liberals is that that mode of following and enforcing a group's norms only works in small-sized groups. Trying to nag and shame random strangers on the internet will only be met with, "Yawn, go kill yourself, fag".

Related post: Liberal vs. conservative forms of purity as a moral intuition.

TL;DR -- liberal "purity" centers on the welfare of the self, conservative "purity" on that of the entire in-group. Liberals are OCD about personal hygiene and nutrition, but not about degeneracy that spreads disease, desecration of what is sacred, and maintaining populational purity (e.g., viewing foreigners as filthy, likely to spread disease, and so on).

Because morality is about the regulation of behavior for the benefit of people other than the self, personalized liberal "purity" is not really a moral foundation at all, while conservative "purity" concerned with others is.