Let me give you two scenarios. In the first, Jack pays Jill a dollar. In the second, Jill pays a dollar to Jack. A liberal would look at these and see two events requiring two moral judgements. Because their moral evaluations take into account who is being affected, changing who is on which side of a situation alters the morality of the circumstances. Whether it's OK for jack to give Jill a dollar or for Jill to give jack a dollar is two questions, not one. The idea is that there are forces of good and evil, and that some are more aligned with one than they are with the other, and it's therefore the benefit of the good and the detriment of the evil which is important. Hurting a good guy is wrong, but hurting a bad guy is good, helping a good guy is good, and helping a bad guy is bad (unless it serves to turn them towards the good). Conservatives, however, focus on one consistent rule, the people on either side do not matter, so when they see these two scenarios, they apply only one moral judgements to rule on them both, that judgement being whether it's OK for one person to give a dollar to another. They will insist on a rule being applied in all cases, without concern for the involvement of different parties, they will make this insistence even when it harms them. Their rule is to do it others as you would have them do unto you, or that there should should one law that applies equally to all parties, even those whom they dislike. The supposed wisdom being that anything you do to someone today sets a precedent that could be used as others to do the same thing to you tomorrow. A fight between a liberal and a conservative goes as follows, a liberal would hit the conservative, they will feel justified in doing so, as a bad guy is being harmed, the conservative will see this as setting a standard rule that hitting people is alright, and so he retaliates. The liberal then cries about the injustice of a conservative hitting a liberal, as a good guy was harmed, by a bad guy, no less, the conservative is confused, wasn't it already established that hitting was acceptable behavior? The conservative first responds with the admission that they hit the liberal (like a idiot, he should deny that he had hit the liberal, then accused the liberal of having framed them), but that the liberal had hit them before. Here, the two are using different moral standards, but only one can see that, the conservative is too myopic to consider the existence of other moral rulesets besides their own, the liberal, however, realizes that there are two different playbooks, and makes a strategy that gets the best of both of them. The liberal cries about how bad it is that they were attacked, and furthermore claims that the accusation that they had started the fight was yet another offense. If they can sell the lie, they will call it a lie, but if they cannot sell the lie, they will call it irrelevant, and add that it doesnt justify what the conservative did, then downplaying their crime ("whataboutism") while keeping the crime of the conservative in the public's attention. The liberals will not care about the good of the conservative and only empathize with the liberal, while the conservatives, instead of doing likewise in reverse and championing their fellow conservative with disdain for the liberal (which they should should doing), will try to remain impartial and figure out who did wrong and who did right, they will trample their fellow conservative by putting them and their enemy on an equal level of moral value. Liberals this get backup, while conservatives get fucked over by their fellows who refuse to play favorites. One team plays to win at the expense of the other, the other plays as if there weren't any teams, so that everyone can win. The conservative plays a losing game, and feels a perverse sense of pride in martyring themselves for the sake of their principles, hoping to influence others woth their self sacrificing nobility. Everyone who isn't absolutely insane will look at the guys whose ideas consistently lead them to suffer abd die, and sanely reject it, seeing their example as a reason not to think as the conservatives do. There was a reason thst pacifists and conscientious objectors were treated as the enemy, because they were, they were worse than that, they were traitors, the enemy within, dangerous people with dangerous ideas and a demoralizing impact on your own forces, best to remove them before attacking the enemy without. Until the conservative problem is dealt with, the liberal problem could never be.