So you are a hypocrite who wants to impose his own view of human rights onto me using the state. Alright then.
Here's the thing: every single ideology that recognizes what human rights are are going to disagree what they entail. Neo-Thomists, Rawlsian Liberals, Anarcho-Capitalists, and Social Democrats all have differing views of what is or isn't a human rights violation. For example, a social democrat might say that we all have a right to government-funded schooling and a living wage while an Anarcho-Capitalist would say that counts as a human rights violation. A Rawlsian Liberal would consider a ban on gay pride parades to be violating human rights to self-expression while a Neo-Thomist would say that such a ban could be necessary to preserve the right of humans to live in a morally upright society; meanwhile, an Anarcho-Capitalist would be asking "it depends on who owns the property. And that's only the groups that think human rights are actually meaningful things that exist.
Point is, not everyone agrees with you on whether human rights exist, not everyone agrees on your definition of human rights, and citing a dictionary definition that agrees with you won't help. Again, you are no different from the feminist that would call me a sexist.
How is censorship of pornography a human rights violation if I don't even agree that there is such a thing as a human right to indulge in pornography? More question-begging.
Tell me,
@Abhorsen, do you want to debate me so badly on what human rights are? If so, I can start a separate thread. Otherwise, we can talk about the effectiveness of banning Pornhub. The case was made in the OP was based on both science and the history of bad behavior on the part of porn websites. I then cited examples of how that could be done effectively in a liberal country like the United States. Not a single person on this forum website has even come close to refuting it on those terms.
Here's a better question: if there really is a swinging pendulum as you claim, how come the Left is able to make society more Left wing over the course of several decades?
I see two possible explanations.
1. You are wrong, and the Right-wing, which has been run for decades by people like Ben Shapiro and David French (read: people who share your views of government authority) has caved in to the Left on every issue because it's too scared to really grab power and use it.
2. You are right, in which case, no Left-wing policies are ever overturned while every Right-wing policy is overturned. This would lead us to the conclusion that democracy as a system is inherently Left-wing. In that case, no Right-wing movement could ever be efficacious and the only way for Right-wingers to ever get their policies implemented in any real sense is to overthrow democracy.