Opinion It’s hard to be right when arguing with the right - Conservatives’ rhetoric shows that their ideas are not raised in good faith

It’s hard to be right when arguing with the right​

maga.jpg

Colin Houston, Opinion Columnist | October 13, 2022

When you look at the rhetoric and policies of the American left, a noticeable trend appears in the way liberals attempt to engage with the right. Specifically, liberals tend to be interested in reason and the effectiveness of compromise, believing that their political opponents have good intentions, but different ideas for their implementation.
While it may be true that the average conservative on the street has good intentions, their beliefs come from people who very much do not. The ideology and rhetoric of the American right are based on one thing — maintaining a status quo that exists to exclude essentially anyone from power and security who falls outside the lines of white, cishet and male. Conservatives scoff at this and accuse the left of making radical attacks based on a mere difference of opinions, but I’m fed up with pretending they have any rhetorical leg to stand on.
Conservatives’ rhetoric shows that their ideas are not raised in good faith. For example, the House of Representatives passed the Respect for Marriage Act this year, the aim of which is to codify the protection of same-sex marriage into law. 77% of House Republicans voted no and justified it with unbelievable mental gymnastics, such as North Carolina representative Dan Bishop, who called it an attack on Americans who hold traditional views of marriage. This seems like an almost impossible conclusion for a Constitution-loving Republican to arrive at, considering freedom of religion is guaranteed by the First Amendment, but that apparently doesn’t matter.

That issue hardly stands alone when it comes to inflammatory Republican rhetoric. When people raise genuine concerns about the wave of anti-trans legislation pushed by Republicans nationwide, Republicans such as Ron DeSantis have accused them of pedophilia and child grooming. When people raise concerns about an abortion ban’s effect on women’s rights, Republicans have accused them of supporting murder. When there was a push to improve public education about America’s racist past and its effect on the present, Republicans fought tooth and nail to demonize critical race theory and accuse the left of being racist against white people.

Through this type of rhetoric, Republican politicians and pundits have managed to convince tens of millions of people to ignore all evidence against the notion that their ideas are benevolent when their rhetorical strategies betray the fact that their primary interest is to preserve social hierarchies conservatives have perpetuated for centuries. Considering a significant number of conservative ideologues studied at schools such as Harvard and Stanford in fields explicitly related to politics and history, you’ll have a hard time convincing me they don’t know exactly what they’re doing.
As such, it is unproductive to act as if the only difference between the American left and the American right is perspective when conservative rhetoric proves to be consistently inflammatory and violent. Trying to defeat them in the marketplace of ideas will only allow them more of a platform to spread this rhetoric, and trying to compromise with them is similar to trying to get a brick wall to move out of your way.

With all of that in mind, it’s maddening to see people on the left try to dumb down their own ideas or make them more moderate to appease the right when all that accomplishes is decreasing their effectiveness. Powerful conservatives don’t care how moderate the American left makes itself because they know they can get away with calling them socialists and radicals anyway, so there is absolutely no disadvantage to fighting back with policies that are actually effective.
This doesn’t mean liberals and leftists should cut all conservatives out of their lives (unless their presence is harmful or dangerous) because the Republican base being isolated from people who have different views is not a solution. What it does mean is that, when it comes to political engagement, it’s time for the American left to care much less about what conservatives think and to care more about victory in the realms of social and economic justice above all else. Organize, look into mutual aid and pay attention, because making a real change means winning where it really matters.

About the Contributor
cuck.jpg

Colin Houston, Opinion Columnist
My name is Colin Houston, and I’m an opinion columnist for the Trinitonian. I’m a sophomore from San Antonio most likely majoring in political science...
 
You quote the most famous Russian dissident of the Soviet Union we know they know they are lying we know they know that we know that they align we know that they know we know that they know we know that the line but they are still lying
It doesn't matter how many times you just proved leftism it's completely based on lies anyways but not liberals by the way these people have nothing to do with John Locke Thomas Paine Francis Scott Key
These peoples ideas come from marks Friedrich Engels
Michelle Falco
Francisco Franco's top psychologists psychological exam is leftist and it wasn't told to say that leftism is a psychological disease and you know what he figured out their envious they have a s*** ton of personality disorders and a bunch of other antisocial behaviors the entirety of leftism is the is spiteful genetic dead ends trying to drag Society down with them

You do not compromise with the devil you do not compromise with the rabbit dog you simply spit in the devil's eye and put the rabbit dog down
 
I am not reading any articles that try to paint dumb libs like Republicans and MAGApedes as being "right".
I find that very offensive.
 
When you look at the rhetoric and policies of the American left, a noticeable trend appears in the way liberals attempt to engage with the right.
Funny, I don't want to engage with you. I want you to fuck off and leave me alone.

Specifically, liberals tend to be interested in reason and the effectiveness of compromise, believing that their political opponents have good intentions, but different ideas for their implementation.
One paragraph later....
The ideology and rhetoric of the American right are based on one thing — maintaining a status quo that exists to exclude essentially anyone from power and security who falls outside the lines of white, cishet and male.
Since you have already divined my motives (by what evidence and method is unclear) what point is there is in 'engaging' with you?
 
Saying "it's hard to be right" means you admit you're wrong. You're either playing Devil's Advocate (not likely) or have alterior motives. It's nothing about the right not arguing in good faith, it's that your position is untenable and you fucking know it. I forget how it goes, but that /pol/ post about the truth because the ideas are challenged and liberals can't handle it; that comes to mind.
 
What kind of self aggrandizing, egotistical, smug cunt spends this much time rhetorically masturbating about how much better their team is compared to the other team?

View attachment 3747615

Oh. You can practically smell the condescension through this picture. Another victory for phrenology.
Really I smelled the rotting corpses of his future victims.
 
View attachment 3747615

Oh. You can practically smell the condescension through this picture. Another victory for phrenology.
He's albino adjacent, if not albino with contacts. That shade of blonde is like snot, and the only place where his skin isn't milk-white is where it's flush. Those boxy glasses don't help either. I think he's balding and his choice of angle might not be contempt, but attempts to hide creative combing. Looks like a halo of a combover.
 
The movement of a large set of Democrat voters is Progressivism meaning a constant move forward. That movement is antithetical to compromise as it's just a speed bump to their goals.

This. So much this.

The article states that this is their premise from the get go:

believing that their political opponents have good intentions, but different ideas for their implementation.

In their minds, the only right wing person they can imagine as acceptable is one that wants the same end goal as they do. They can never imagine a right wing person that wants a different end goal as being valid ever. And that's why they are so pissed 24/7. They can't fathom that more libertarian people have the same voting weight as they do, and they HAVE to work with them.
 
It's hard to be right when people keep bringing up those pesky things like "facts" and "reality" and "our own words".

Liberals know they're lying and love propaganda so they think if you're more convincing then you must just have better propaganda. They do not understand that beyond a certain point you can't sleaze someone into believing what you want them to believe by weasel words alone. It's incomprehensible to a lefty that someone pointing to objective, provable facts is always more convincing than some swivel-eyed loony calling everyone a racist.
 
I like how they claim conservatives don't argue in good faith when their side regularly spews nonsense like "Do this or we'll kill ourselves"
The very essence of "arguing" with the left:

Cite history? They admonish you to learn some facts.

Cite facts? They admonish you to learn some history.

Cite the paradox they have just put you in? They just admonish you for not arguing in "good faith"

The only difference from there is how they react if you just walk away.

If they're commies they threaten to kill you.

If progressive, they threaten to kill themselves.
 
Okay, seriously.

What genes do you have to merge to get a human neck and head combination like that? It always looks strange to me.
I would posit this is sociological and not genetic/orthodontic. Imagine if you will some sneeding incel, laughing at the pathetic-chinned looksmaxxers needing surgery for a square jaw. He sits there smug and oblivious to the fact that such a pronounced under-bite is also a deformity. One just as subliminally revolting to women as the opposite. PSA Parents: fix your fucking children's teeth! You've got until like 24 max before any plasticity is gone and the remedial techniques they can do are ineffective. No child deserves to grow into an Anglo-looking adult.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FierceBrosnan
There are no liberals anymore, at least not in the traditional sense of the word.

Those who call themselves such nowadays tend to be fascists fraudulently trying to dress up their lies as the spiritual successor of the 1960s and the ideals that era embraced.

The classical liberalism of the founders has little to do with modern day progressive left utopian types, no matter how much they crow about how "the founding fathers were liberals."

I should also add that liberalism, even classical liberalism, enabled leftism to run amok.

"Freedom" by itself is no good if it's the ends rather than the means.

 
I should also add that liberalism, even classical liberalism, enabled leftism to run amok.

"Freedom" by itself is no good if it's the ends rather than the means.

Maybe it created the environment for such a thing but perhaps it's just gonna self-destruct.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FierceBrosnan
Another example of Democrats being deceptive is their desire to ban private health insurance.

Now, when they do polling on banning private health insurance and making everyone take a public plan it polls really poorly.

But when they change the term to single payer or Medicare for All they poll much better. As such, the narrative they use is Medicare for All when they push a bill to ban private health insurance.

This is done because they know that their are private plans that will provide better coverage than the public plan and they can't let the people choose for themselves or that might make the single public
 
  • Agree
Reactions: FierceBrosnan
Another example of Democrats being deceptive is their desire to ban private health insurance.

Now, when they do polling on banning private health insurance and making everyone take a public plan it polls really poorly.

But when they change the term to single payer or Medicare for All they poll much better. As such, the narrative they use is Medicare for All when they push a bill to ban private health insurance.

This is done because they know that their are private plans that will provide better coverage than the public plan and they can't let the people choose for themselves or that might make the single public
As much as the medical industry has problems, I don't see how preventing others from getting premium care is going to make things more affordable for anyone else.

Not to mention anything public of this nature has so many corners cut, it might as well be a circle.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: FierceBrosnan
As much as the medical industry has problems, I don't see how preventing others from getting premium care is going to make things more affordable for anyone else.

Not to mention anything public of this nature has so many corners cut, it might as well be a circle.
They want the middle class to suffer so the people will be more willing to vote for more taxes for MFA.

Allowing private health insurance gives them an out where they do not have to support limitless tax increases to support the masses.

For example, Niggers (not Black people) usually eat like shit and have serious medical issues. Same for White trash but to a lesser extent. But if you have private insurance you can only pay for persons that can afford private healthcare which has a cohort that is healthier. This means your dollar goes further.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: FierceBrosnan
They want the middle class to suffer so the people will be more willing to vote for more taxes for MFA.

Allowing private health insurance gives them an out where they do not have to support limitless tax increases to support the masses.
Honestly they probably don't support private anything, and like the communists of past times, probably still think that it's somehow possible to turn humans into an ant colony of sorts. If you get my drift.

Anyone who wants to abolish private property should be beaten up and have their shit stolen, just to prove a point.
 
A lot of people also forget that during the 60s and 70s, there were plenty of people who held the same political beliefs that SJWs of the 2010s and 20s hold.

The Weather Underground, SDS, and the May 19th Communist Organization.

Just like SJWs of today, they were anti-white. They believed in concepts like "white privilege" and unironically adopted the belief that all white people were tainted by the original sin of privilege ever since birth.

The SJWs and wokists of today are even bigger "dinosaurs" than the right wingers that criticize them, as their ideology is just an extremist ideology exhumed from the 60s and 70s. And while they're just as batshit crazy as their predecessors, they're even more irrelevant and ridiculous.
1666145262975.png

A lot of those radicals from the 60s / 70s either got arrested and pardoned or got jobs in academia. They now either lead these movements up high or taught the people leading those movements. Susan Rosenberg was pardoned on the last day of Clinton's admin.
 
Back