Independent thinkers question the intentions of others and have a stubborn reliance on facts when it comes to making important decisions for themselves and their loved ones. The leftist elite cannot have anyone questioning their decisions, much less refusing to go along with them. To paraphrase the fascists-- Nothing outside the collective, everything inside the collective, and nothing against the collective. All wants and needs must align with those of the collective. We see this taken to its logical extreme in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, when society completely collapses without the services of those who refuse to sacrifice their own self-interest to an ungrateful society that takes them for granted.
The Left is highly motivated by fear, and they fear a world in which they are not in control they will be victimized by those who are. This is driven by the Marxist belief that all power imbalances between people result in a oppressor/oppressed relationship.
What kind of person is so caught up in the climate-change alarmism that they’d suggest pets are part of the problem? Perhaps someone caught up in mass-formation psychosis. (Oops! Did I say the 'M-F' word?) Pets are part of our families in the West, so it's no wonder that the left under Marxism, wants Fido and Kitty too. The Leftist religion of Climate Change makes way for this new target, our pets. This may sound off-the-wall, but then, there's a reason we use the word "psychosis," and we explore the role mass-formation psychosis or "mass hysteria," has been used to build totalitarian regimes.
For people who love their pets, even liberals who don't own a gun, don't have kids, don't own a car, or don't understand money, their pets might be where they finally draw the line. The love of pets is one of the last commonalities between the Left and the Right in this world. You can mess with someone's gun, their car or their money, but don't mess with their pets. CNN may be barking up the wrong tree when it comes to downsizing Fido or Kitty.
Thier surveillance state in 1984 was slightly more advanced than ours, though ours is rapidly catching up. It enabled them to detect deviant, anti-party behavior as soon as it manifested itself. That would trigger increased scrutiny. If it advanced to the point of being displayed in public, the perpetrator would be imprisoned, and eventually killed. Not just killed, but all traces of you would be erased. People would quickly learn not to oppose the ever-changing Big Brother narrative. They were conditioned though fear, and the knowledge they were monitored constantly to intuit wrongthink and stifle such thoughts before they emerged. This is what Ingsoc called "crimestop". People were trained to self-cancel any independent part of their psyche.
The feeling of moral superiority by those who continue to hold onto these falsehoods must be so high, that no amount of factual data, or evidence to the contrary, can shake them loose from those who cling to them. These fallacies are a problem, not just because they involve deception, but they also induce bigotry and sometimes even violence against “MAGA Republicans” and others who espouse conservative values.
Thankfully, the surveillance state in the real world, at least in the West, has not been developed and exploited to quite that extent. What the current regime in America does seem to have, similar to the one in fictional Oceania, is the intent to destroy all competing ideologies, and political groups. Going against the State's narrative can't get you killed, (yet) but sometimes can get you imprisoned and can certainly get you canceled.
These events represent a greater pattern of the DOJ seeming to pursue people alleged to have committed crimes on the right with much more vigor and intensity than they do people on the left. Hillary Clinton was accused of having classified documents in an unclassified environment and was not charged. President Trump was accused of the basically the same thing, and the left is screaming for him to be charged.
An electorate suffering from TDS, blind to their own prejudices is liable to vote away our freedom just to spite one man they have convinced themselves is an enemy of democracy and vote in the exact sort of fascism they claim to be against.