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...
 
Compromise? Lmao.

You know what people compromised at? Gun rights and abortion.
Tell me what happened there again?

Also of course it's hard to be right on topics when you're such a retard you can't even be bothered to look into what people meant when they said 'los coyotes' and just assumed OPPOSITION is retarded and meant real coyotes.
The sheer ineptitude and smugness needed for not just one, but both scenarios to happen is fucking hilarious.
 
Specifically, liberals tend to be interested in reason and the effectiveness of compromise
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."

Maybe so, but that doesn't make you any less of a clown.

Also, I think a lot of people of my age look at and idealize the 1960s in a way and are probably just pissed off that there aren't really any major civil rights battles left to fight anymore. Dudes in dresses and violent criminals who happen to have a different skin color than you are NOT winning issues.
 
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.

Reagan also compromised on gun control.

He was among those who supported a ban on "assault weapons."
 
Would love a link and archive.

There's this paper (archive).

3a. Conservatives were most accurate about the individual-focused moral concerns of either side, and liberals were least accurate. Compared to actual group means of either data set, moral stereotypes about the typical conservative showed substantial underestimation of conservatives' Harm and Fairness concerns. Liberals tended to underestimate the most (average d = −.98, −1.50≤ds≤−.41), followed by moderates (average d = −.48, −.79≤ds≤−.08); conservatives underestimated the individualizing concerns of the typical conservative the least (average d = −.34, −.55≤ds≤−.11), but they too underestimated their own group's Harm and Fairness concerns in every comparison with actual conservative scores.

Stereotypes about the Harm and Fairness concerns of the typical liberal tended to be more accurate as compared to actual liberal scores in the two datasets. Here again conservatives were the most accurate, only slightly underestimating liberal individualizing concerns (average d = −.08, −.66≤ds≤.26), followed by moderates, who underestimated slightly more (average d = −.12, −.61≤ds≤.30). Liberals were the least accurate about their own group's individualizing concerns, overestimating them on average (average d = .40, −.11≤ds≤.80).

3b. Moderates were most accurate about the group-focused moral concerns of either side, and liberals were least accurate. Stereotypes about the Ingroup, Authority, and Purity concerns of the typical conservative tended to be overestimations compared to the actual group means in both datasets. Here again liberals were the least accurate, overestimating conservative binding concerns the most (average d = .55, .03≤ds≤1.01), followed by conservatives, who also overestimated their own group's binding concerns (average d = .34, −.22≤ds≤.70); moderates were the most accurate (average d = .28, −.14≤ds≤.66), but they too overestimated the binding concerns when answering as a typical conservative.

Stereotypes about the typical liberal, on the other hand, tended to underestimate the binding moral concerns actual liberals reported. Here again liberals were the least accurate, underestimating their own binding concerns the most (average d = −.62, −1.19≤ds≤−.11), followed by conservatives (average d = −.46, −.90≤ds≤.18). Moderates were the most accurate (average d = −.17, −.63≤ds≤.43), but also underestimated the binding concerns when answering as a typical liberal.

3c. Liberals exaggerate moral differences the most. Means for the three groups' moral stereotypes about the typical liberal and typical conservative are shown compared to the real group means (solid black lines) in Figure 2. As both of the top panels (current sample comparison) and both of the bottom panels (representative sample comparison) show, participants across the political spectrum tended to exaggerate the liberal-conservative differences, as evidenced by the steeper slopes of the prediction lines as compared to the actual lines. This exaggeration of differences is an effect of overestimating liberals' individualizing concerns and underestimating their binding concerns, and overestimating conservatives' binding concerns and underestimating their individualizing concerns. All four panels of Figure 2 show that liberals exaggerate differences the most (lines representing moral stereotypes held by liberals have the steepest slopes); the figure also shows that the largest inaccuracies were liberal underestimations of the individualizing concerns of the typical conservative. Overall exaggeration of moral differences (operationalized as overestimating conservative binding concerns, underestimating conservative individualizing concerns, and doing the opposite for liberals) is plotted across the full ideological spectrum in Figure 3.
 
Yes I imagine most arguments would feel futile when you believe you’re right no matter what and make no effort to understand why other people think and act the way they do.

I have tried arguing with people online. You have not seen a brick wall until you’ve seen a middle aged liberal woman try to win an argument because “science”.
 
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.
Some mincing little 90 pound faggot is gonna have to do better at gaslighting me than this
but I’m fed up with pretending they have any rhetorical leg to stand on.
Am I supposed to feel trepidation about this or something?
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.
And someone who looks like he is made out of actual breadsticks is going to do what about this?
 
Also, I think a lot of people of my age look at and idealize the 1960s in a way and are probably just pissed off that there aren't really any major civil rights battles left to fight anymore. Dudes in dresses and violent criminals who happen to have a different skin color than you are NOT winning issues.

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.
 
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.
I knew those types existed, but the way you put it makes the whole thing peak irony.

So the whole thing is basically a rebranding of internal threats from the Cold War era. Shouldn't be surprising considering the geriatrics in charge trying to bring back everything awful about that era.
 
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.
I’m glad this current crop isn’t committing domestic bombings by the dozens.

Instead, they just have a stranglehold on the communications and information sectors.

Bit of a wash really.
 
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.
Majority of them were from communist and Russian Jewish backgrounds. So you can go back even further, to the bolsheviks and Marx.
 
There's that one famous study that asked libtards and conservatives to answer a survey about what they believe, and then answer the same questions about how they think vice versa would answer. The conservatives knew exactly how liberals would answer the survey for the most part, and libtards had 0 clue. They're utterly ignorant of everything, most especially their own ignorance.
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 know it's an easy mistake to make so I fixed that for you.

Their enemies are likely even more heavily armed and less likely to compromise on issues like gun control now.

That's pretty much what prevented the death count from the 2020 riots from going above the double digits. That boomer couple with the AR, and Kyle Rittenhouse merking a pedophile, a domestic abuser, and house burgler in a single night.
 
There's that one famous study that asked libtards and conservatives to answer a survey about what they believe, and then answer the same questions about how they think vice versa would answer. The conservatives knew exactly how liberals would answer the survey for the most part, and libtards had 0 clue. They're utterly ignorant of everything, most especially their own ignorance.
Sounds interesting. You don't have a link handy by chance?
 
Their enemies are likely even more heavily armed and less likely to compromise on issues like gun control now.

That's pretty much what prevented the death count from the 2020 riots from going above the double digits. That boomer couple with the AR, and Kyle Rittenhouse merking a pedophile, a domestic abuser, and house burgler in a single night.

This is the unspoken relationship between the left wing and right wing in America. The lawless rioting class wants to pretend they're in charge and the right wing is painfully slow to organize, but the response to the Rittenhouse thing demonstrates the reality.
 
Back