I think it is important for us, as victors, to rub the (already dirty) faces of leftists in their own defeat. It is our duty to do this. I will attempt to justify.
I have thought long and hard about the arguments made to be polite to those who lose in a contest. Especially if you are the victor. I agree entirely without exception. After all, conservatives are winning in politics right now so this is an important time to self-audit.
In politics, there is a competition of ideas. I read here on WB (90% politics) that politeness is the best form of argumentation. However, I don't believe that crap anymore. Yet for sports, I would say otherwise. Viscous winners make for pathetic losers in the inevitable next round of games where winners and losers trade status inevitably. One might say, in competition, this is the unwritten code of conduct.
There are two main arguments for being gracious competitors:
1) Respect for the efforts of the losing team.
2) In a competition of ideas, a debate, malicious words do not add value to arguments. This is, historically, the "reasonable" choice of most conservatives.
Conservatives fundamentally believe that individual liberty is the core value. This includes valuing another's ideas even in debate. This is, perhaps, a modern point of failure (but not new) in conservative ideology. It is a point of failure because if I respect another's opinions to remove my liberty, then I am fundamentally undermining my own arguments. The political disagreements of yesterday have always centered around the questions of individual liberty and what it means to trade some of that liberty for the social greater good. Politics is the gridiron for these debates which is why I detest politics to a large degree as politics is constantly challenging my liberties.
Think about this. If there was never again a challenge for liberties, politics would cease to exist. There would be no more power battles because at the center of all political power is the individual and his/her liberty.
Modern politics have become polarized-extreme. The arguments have devolved to elements . . . to existential definitions. What I mean is that the value for individual liberty is superseded by the very arguments for this fundamental right. Ultimately, to enforce the argument for liberty, one must remove the liberty of the opposition. This is paradoxical and makes all arguments for individual liberty hypocritical. Which is why the founders of American government made this claim,
“We hold these truths to be self-evident [intrinsic], that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Otherwise, with this intrinsic definition of liberty, liberty itself is merely a fascist edict which is logically no more valid than any other idea. In fact, Liberty is itself paradoxical if you do not believe that it is a fundamental and unalienable right. These fundamental rights we hold are not ultimately fundamental truths unless we believe they define who we are and are intrinsically bestowed naturally. Socialism/communism/Marxism hold that Liberty is not an unalienable right. It is extrinsically defined by a government.
These are all-or-nothing debates we are now having.
These "arguments", in our past, were waged mortally.
There were no arguments for liberty without paradox when liberty requires the absolute removal of one's liberty for those who disagree. This is the ultimate reality which few conservatives understand or would actually put their life at risk.
Somebody once said, "If a man would not die for anything, he lives for nothing". Why is that quote pertinent?
Many conservatives, who make the argument for "winner's grace" still look at politics as a "fair-play" competition. You win this round, I win the next. We then drink a beer and raise our cups together cheering a greater good . . . the art of battle. This was your parent's politics in Washington. This was American politics, in Congress, pre 21st century . . . for the most part. Most conservatives (aka Paul Ryan) thought that style of "politics" was unchanged. He understands differently now and consequently is retiring. For him, this new era of politics, a race to mortal conflict, is not his game. The stakes are too high.
This round of politics is entirely different. In my view, politics in this 2nd decade is
The left wants to destroy freedom . . . they don't give a shit about liberty. And certainly, want a "new" America.
In conclusion, this is why, if we disagree on politics, I say, "go fuck yourself". There are no rational points to be made when we differ on Liberty. I cant convince you if our ideologies are so fundamentally different. If you don't value liberty as intrinsically defined for humans, there are no words left otherwise. I will hate you. I will despise you. I think you are an idiot. And I understand full well that these are mortal arguments we are having. At the end of our discussion I would ask you one rhetorical question: are you willing to die for your beliefs?
I write here on WB to refine my own ideas. I read the comments. I read people's thoughts. But in reality, I don't give a shit about your thoughts unless you are willing to back your values with your life.