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...
 
Feels over reals morons screech over having to deal with actual facts and logic... more at 11

Also don't forget that anything short of a progressive talking point, is considered "right" in these cases. Not just actual right wing or conservative opinions.
 
View attachment 3747633

This is the definition of "Watschengesicht"*.



*a face that makes you want to punch it
I have no idea if that is a failed man or a failed FtM. The Adam's apple indicates man, but there is a look to them that regrets every single life choice we usually only see with trannies. That and they're beyond soft and weak, even for the usual low standards of the left.
 
View attachment 3748905
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.
Not just academia but political positions and i don't doubt high-end media positions too.
It's why the elites hate sites like these and why they cannibalized 4ch0ns and that thing with TMZ. They have fucktons of dirt they don't want to be noticed.
 
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.
You can see his politics, and count his brain cells.
 
Not just academia but political positions and i don't doubt high-end media positions too.
It's why the elites hate sites like these and why they cannibalized 4ch0ns and that thing with TMZ. They have fucktons of dirt they don't want to be noticed.
Remember those videos of Ivy League law students howling like monkeys over Ben Shapiro (or some normiecon shit like that)?

Those are your future prosecutors, lawyers, and judges.
 
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 know engaging in pilpul word games can be tiring, but this is a case where it can readily be turned against them. Get them to proclaim to be progressives, then ask them to define progressive, or even progress in-general. They likely won't be able to. They might make some determination that fits with their philosophy and worldview, but then they are just as impotent to advocate for it universally as any other ideology. They like to pretend it is some rational pursuit of freedom, or embracing liberal principles. Taking away their cover by making them define it exposes the weakness.

Because when you get down to fundamentals, progressivism is actually very simple to understand: current system=bad, change=good. This is a constant state for progressives. Even when they "succeed" and implement their own system, they eventually become the "old guard" to be ousted by the next rising faction promising change. It is unprincipled dedication to entropy and inherently cannot create a stable system. Unlike autocrats with some actual vision they want to dictate the destruction of society for change's own sake.
 
I know engaging in pilpul word games can be tiring, but this is a case where it can readily be turned against them. Get them to proclaim to be progressives, then ask them to define progressive, or even progress in-general. They likely won't be able to. They might make some determination that fits with their philosophy and worldview, but then they are just as impotent to advocate for it universally as any other ideology. They like to pretend it is some rational pursuit of freedom, or embracing liberal principles. Taking away their cover by making them define it exposes the weakness.

Because when you get down to fundamentals, progressivism is actually very simple to understand: current system=bad, change=good. This is a constant state for progressives. Even when they "succeed" and implement their own system, they eventually become the "old guard" to be ousted by the next rising faction promising change. It is unprincipled dedication to entropy and inherently cannot create a stable system. Unlike autocrats with some actual vision they want to dictate the destruction of society for change's own sake.
They really hate definitions because it creates standards to which they have to hold themselves, in order to be logically consistent.

This conflicts with their lust for power. Thus, they move the goalposts by redefining and "reimagining" words.
  • white people can't be victims of racism, because "racism equals prejudice plus power";
  • We've had two consecutive quarters of negative GDP and counting, but it's not a recession this time because there was job creation (which was really just bringing back jobs destroyed by lockdowns)
  • It's not terrorism unless it "disrupts the democratic process"
"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'.
 
"It's Hard to be Right When Arguing With The Right"

Wow, so clever. Now tell me more on why I should bother engaging (aka "compromising", like this faggot author is whining about) with you when you insist on acting like a petulant child just because someone happens to disagree with you?
Not to mention that "It's hard to be right" phraseology implies that their talking points don't hold up to scrutiny when it's actually challenged by an opponent.
 
That's very interesting.

It would explain why I frequently see conservatives accurately use leftist talking point against them, while I never, ever see the reverse - it's always just stating their own points louder or name-calling.
I've observed that terfs/gc people keenly understand what troons are arguing for. They just think it's retarded. But troons have no idea what terfs think and the only explanation they can conceive of is that terfs are just cartoonish hateful white supremacists. There's no deeper logic they can see as plausible, even if they still disagree.

Troons watching too many super hero movies and playing too many video games probably contributes to that.

Now on the other hand, troons are much better at impersonating terf language. Even for the sake of parody to mock troons, I've seen terfs really struggle to use the asinine terminology troons use, things like "male gender identity" or TME (trans misogyny exempted, ie transwomen).
 
Compromise...
View attachment 3747695

Also, most youngfags might not remember but Reagan "compromised" on immigration and legalized 2.7 million illegal aliens for the promise of border security.

Yet today, we have Democrats pushing to tear down border walls in urban areas. Funding for some sort of border barrier was a compromise for more immigrants until Trump wanted to do it.


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.
We also "compromised" by letting gays just be gay in their own home. And how they promised it'd stay to that.
 
  • Dumb
Reactions: polonium
We also "compromised" by letting gays just be gay in their own home. And how they promised it'd stay to that.
Their was a segment on a 1980s or early 90s talk show (Donahue?) where they interviewed gays and the gay panel expressly states they did not want marriage.
 
This article makes a lot more sense if it was based in American politics circa 2004, but the world has changed since then, and while people have goldfish memory when it comes to politics, you can't even make "DURR YOU CAN'T COMPROMISE" when the dismantling of Roe v Wade actually didn't affect the blue states at all, and any attempt to codify Roe v Wade in Congress was hard pro-abortion without any wiggle room.
 
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.

How is this any different than:

Powerful neoliberals don’t care how moderate the American right makes itself because they know they can get away with calling them nazis and fascists anyway, so there is absolutely no disadvantage to fighting back with policies that are actually effective.
 
Back