It frustrates me on Less Wrong that I cannot call certain views crazy without being called leftist

If one called religion "crazy", one would be likely to be an atheist. And if an American lists a bunch of Republican views and call them all crazy, without doing anything similar about any Democrat-held view I'd consider them likely to be a Democrat (or a libertarian but, since you seem to dislike libertarianism, that's unlikely in your case).

On my part, it frustrates me that you see calling certain views "crazy" as supposedly being dissent or an argument. No! Calling a different view "crazy" without any argument about why, is a status game -- it's an attempt to shut down dissent by deliberately lowering the status of the people that even attempt to discuss the issue.

i.e. they aren't just in really strong disagreement with you (something which would put them on an equal level), they are insane wackos, and nobody sane could possibly hold any doubt about the issue, or worse yet defend the views, or worse yet share them. It's an attempt to throw said views outside the Overton window.

On my part I'm actually sympathetic about such status games. I'm a progressive. I wish that e.g. neonazism in Greece had been destroyed, and same with lots of other vile crazy views. I don't want to discuss with Greek neonazis, I want them utterly destroyed and thrown out of any political discussion completely.

But you seek the same about your political opponents (seemingly Republicans), while also seemingly denying you so seek it.

People on LessWrong, however, have the ability to recognize status games when they see them.

Right, so as ArisKatsaris says: calling something crazy without an argument is a status game. I suspect if you actually dived into the issues themselves you wouldn't be that far away from even the most reactionary people on this site. I don't think anyone here doesn't believe in evolution. I don't think anyone has strong moral issues with homosexuality-- though you might hear some descriptive analyses of the cause and nature of homosexuality you might not like. "global warming being a thing" is trickier: since there are several sub-claims within it. Plus, this is a place where people like to question scientists. I mean, there is no way there aren't large minorities here who disagree with scientific consensuses in nutrition science, pharmacology and psychology. Climate science needn't be special.

But the issue is that you're not actually arguing these points, you're just waving a flag. You can tell just by the way you phrased them: "global warming being a thing" , "boys kissing being okay". It shuts down discussion about these issues because you've construed them such that anyone who wants to, say, question the widespread hyperbole when Democrats discuss global warming or talk about how homosexuality can't possibly be genetic now has to take a status hit as a result of taking the side you've construed has "crazy".

I'm intrigued by your usage of "yield the point" in this context. Do you feel that the more likely interpretations proposed by others in this matter takes away something of value from you?