there's a pronounced contingent on dissensus who believe that liberalism must be defended from the far right by illiberal means (no platforming, antifa violence, etc.). that fact that you disagree with that has possibly made them feel that you are sympathetic to the far right.
this coupled with possible aesthetic preoccupations of yours (maybe you flirt with far right iconography or something) may confirm these suspicions.
I'm opposed to the violent illiberal repression by groups of self-appointed political police, or the State, of the right of individuals to freedom of association, freedom of conscience and freedom of discussion.
I don't believe that anybody has the right to tell another person what books they're allowed to read, what thoughts they are allowed to have, and who they can and can't be friends with, and I'm opposed to to anyone and everyone who claims they have this authority, and attempts to impose it by force.
I oppose groups who use tactics of intimidation, propaganda and violence against innocent people and scapegoats to advance totalitarian agendas.
That agenda advances, implacably, when discussion degrades into organized political violence, creating a ratchet effect with extremely destructive results.
I have stated all this very clearly several times.
The determination of individuals to mischaracterize my position is a symptomatic consequence of their ethical and intellectual weakness of their own.
The term "far-right" is now used so often that you will have to define it, otherwise I do not know what you mean by it.
Anyone who wants to know what I think about things is welcome to read what I've written, and can agree or disagree with me, as they wish.