The problem with your response if you've fundementally divided the world into the fearless, social justice serving left and the corrupt, evil, fascist, right. It can be assumed that the far right is not going to change their mind at any point; however the majority of the world isn't far right or far left. Many people are moderates that could go one way or the other.

By designating everyone who doesn't agree with you as "the right" that can't every act in good faith and is irredeemable you galvanize the more moderates. This incident won't have a substantive impact on the far right, but it may cause a change in opinion in more moderate voices.

Essentially be advocating this black and white extremism you hurt your cause and play into the very narrative that those on the other side are saying.

I'm sorry reality has taken such a fascist bent but it's not my fault, it's just something we have to contend with now. But your both-side-ism is morally reprehensible in the context of what's happening right now.

What exactly is happening and how can you really say that the reality is now fascist? It sounds like you've already made the both-side-ism implicitly yourself.

Would you please stop breaking the HN guidelines with ideological flamewar and personal attacks? It's not what this site is for, you do it all the time, and we've warned you several times over several years. In fact I'm surprised we haven't banned you yet, and if you keep this up we will.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I'm a United States citizen.

I'm not a pure conservative, but I expect I hold several views you'd find repugnant and label as "conservative". For instance, I am strongly pro-life. Another one: I believe deeply in the existence of God (and other supernatural beings).

I am, therefore, a bad-faith actor, if I'm following right?

no, you're not following, but I suspect you're doing it on purpose and that was my point.

edit: let me add a proof point from something that matters to you. https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/tv/2020/05/21/a...

Conservatives in this country believe in "small government", "individual freedoms" and "separation between church and state" until a large slice of their electorate turns out to be religious fundamentalists, then they start mandating transvaginal ultrasounds in order to get an abortion etc...

Does that sound like intellectual honesty or good faith?

My question was, in fact, in good faith. I wanted to know if you would apply your generalization to me, as the way it read it seemed to me like it would.

Apparently it doesn't, so I guess I didn't get what you meant.

I tried to go back and reread it, but it's flagged now and I don't see a way to.

I think your example is actually closer to intellectual honesty than you think it is.

"Small government" is not "no government".

To a pro-life conservative, abortion is murder.

I've yet to meet a conservative who doesn't think the government should be involved in preventing murder.

Requiring you look at the victim before killing them is a pretty pathetic protection against murder, but it's probably better than nothing.

I'd guess from your framing that you support abortion rights. If so, I can certainly see why this would look like intellectual dishonesty to you, but as I argued above, I think that's due to not understanding the people you're talking about well enough, at least in this case.

> Conservatives in the USA are not a good faith actor

None of them? They are ALL acting bad faith? Is that a good faith argument?