This doesn't make sense to me. Are you suggesting we reject the labels 'conservative' and 'liberal' due to their limited usefulness in describing reality and high potential to evoke emotional response?
I wouldn't disagree with that, but the author in question doesn't seem to follow that line of thinking so it seems irrelevant here.
I don't think that "liberal" and "conservative" are empty labels outright. However, they seem to be for the author of the post I was responding to: no substance, just bags to hold reflexive emotions that disguised themselves as opinions.
These two words lend themselves to that, because of what we use them for. I would not reject them, though. Naming things remains useful; and whatever words we would replace these 2 with, and we would, out of necessity: they'd receive the same treatment.
The words are not the problem here. Using them without thinking is.
Personally I think we should just put a pause on using the word "conservative" as it no longer references any coherent political group in the US, and if it does it actually refers to a contingent of the opposite party from what it used to. Rather I think we should be using "reactionary" or "fascist" in its place - both terms having been embraced by Moldbug/Yarvin, who seems to have been one of the main thought leaders of this radical populist destructionism.
But this doesn't mean I can't read something that has been written still using the word "conservative" as a lazy synonym for Republican, suspend my particular frustration about the terminology, and understand the point the author is making.
I wouldn't disagree with that, but the author in question doesn't seem to follow that line of thinking so it seems irrelevant here.