They're not opinions they're moral frameworks. Right wing frameworks value hierarchy, wealth, power, dominance, and status based on assumptions of innate super

They're not opinions they're moral frameworks. Right wing frameworks value hierarchy, wealth, power, dominance, and status based on assumptions of innate superiority/inferiority, and fear of outgroups. Left wing frameworks are based on egalitarianism, universality, and fairness, and tolerance for/interest in outgroups. The issues that exercise the right - immigration, crime, guns, abortion, vaccination and masking mandates, homosexuality, religion, taxation, government oversight - are all emotional triggers on the dominance/passivity axis. The issues that exercise the left - wealth and power differentials, racism, sexism, healthcare, education, collective as opposed to individual survival - are all emotional triggers on the fairness/unfairness axis. You can't overcome these frameworks with facts, because they're fundamentally different. The problem in the anglo world is that the differences have become so polarised they're no longer in sight of each other. If you try to explain to someone on the right that Covid and climate change are both serious issues, the framework kicks in and you get a "Why are you trying to tell me what to do? I don't accept your authority over me" response. Tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of people literally chose to die because they considered vaccination an overwhelming and unacceptable attack on their personal sovereignty. If you try to explain to someone on the left that you have to use rightwing frameworks to communicate with rightwing people you'll get a "That's stupid and wrong, so I'm going to carry on complaining about unfairness and/or quoting science papers at them, but I'll do it more loudly because that's sure to work." Neither side is being rational.