Yeah, it's also really funny because the data that the author uses about police reform also show the conservative luxury beliefs that is “police department don't need to be reformed”. (And the same data also shows that for every income class, the police is largely seen as dysfunctional needing either serious reform or complete defunding).
This post is basically conservative rambling disguised as sociology.
I am in no way conservative, but I think you are missing the point.
There are sets of liberal and conservative beliefs that are held by the wealthy and powerful that are detrimental to the powerless and poor.
He cites the liberal set, maybe he is a conservative and that’s his bias or maybe because there is an inbuilt hypocrisy in some of them, ultimately it doesn’t matter because the point stands on its own and one shouldn’t discount that.
I think you are the one missing the point: it's not that this post has a conservative bias (every text necessarily has these kinds of bias, and that's fine). The problem with this post is that it is only here as an argument against liberal ideas that he doesn't like, and as such it's entirely driven by bad faith.
Then sure there may be some elements of truth sprinkled every now and then, but every piece of propaganda always lies on some truth to be convincing, that doesn't make it legit.
You could break people up into political and wealth-based quadrants:
1. Conservative and rich
2. Conservative and poor
3. Liberal and rich
4. Liberal and poor
Consider the typical expressed beliefs of quadrants 1 and 2. Both advocate that individualism and an internal locus of control can help you succeed in life. The difference is whether they have "succeeded in life" (by socioeconomic measures/ whatever).
Consider the same for quadrants 3 and 4. They would typically be more likely to advocate for the idea that success is based on luck. Again, the difference between 3 and 4 is whether they have not "succeeded."
Of all the quadrants, quadrant number 3 (liberal and rich) has a unique cognitive dissonance between their lived reality and their stated moral position. They tend to believe that rich people have achieved their wealth largely through luck, and now have power and autonomy that others lack. They state that the rich should help the poor, and they are rich, so they continually must justify their own wealth. This type of cognitive dissonance does not exist in the same way for the other 3 quadrants. That's why TFA is inevitably critical of the left for its luxury beliefs moreso than the right.
I'm relatively affluent and I know that it's mostly the product of luck, I have no problem admitting that and that my salary is outrageous compared to the amount of work it requires (and required over my lifetime). I am also actively a militant in favor of an increase in taxes for the guys like me. I'd give away 80% of my capital instantly if it made all of my social class to the same because I know it would make life way better for most of us.
No, but if you disguise your criticism as sociological analysis while hiding under the rug the obvious parts of the analysis that wouldn't fit your narrative, then it's fair to say that's bad faith.
No, I actually read more conservatives than I do read from people who share my opinions because bad faith annoys me even more when it's done from my side.
And there are bunch of conservatives that are even pleasant to read even though I don't have much in common with them.
You can have different opinions and still argue in good faith.
David French is a compulsive contrarian and has ended up in a position where virtually all of his writing consists of attacks against conservatives written for liberal audiences. He’s not nearly as bad as Bill Kristol or Max Boot in this regard but he’s not taken seriously by other conservatives anymore.
Maybe you could evaluate the truth of something on its own merit, rather than sorting into "liberal vs conservative" first and letting truth be secondary to allegiance.
Part of evaluating truth these days is figuring out what information is being left out by the author. It’s hard to figure out the merits of an argument when only one side is presented or info is being hidden.
It's not about liberal vs conservative sorting, there are bad faith argument being raised by all political side.
They are equally bad, no matter where they come from, and they do not deserve anyone's attention, especially when it comes from grifters who live from the the confirmation bias of their followers/patrons.
(I don't even fit in the American political segmentation anyway)
> The problem with this post is that it is only here as an argument against liberal ideas that he doesn't like,
Where's the point of making an argument against liberal ideas you do like?
Unless you are arguing that anything painted "liberal" should never have arguments made against it? That anyone making an argument against a "liberal" position should have their motives questioned?
This post is basically conservative rambling disguised as sociology.