Isn't this true for the opposite political leanings too?

This is a lazy and ridiculous bit of twitter fodder and has noting to do with the article, which itself is poorly written.

So, just like all of the others then?

I'm sorry but this is just ridiculous.

First you don't know what the parents political leaning is. They may be conservative, they may also just as likely be liberal It's foolish to assume their political leanings from just one post just because you disagree with them.

Second they're not saying that in groups or open AI should not be bound by the law. They're saying open AI did not actually break the law. You're free to disagree and explain why you disagree. That would be welcome. But calling them a conservative and saying they think the rich shouldn't be bound by the law is ridiculous

That's not conservatism, that's what any system of governance consists of.

Humans are prone to hypocrisy because they have blind spots. The luckier a person is, the easier they have it, the faster and higher they rise, the more ignorant/delusional they are by the time they reach the top. At the top, these people have the power to shape the world in accordance to their fanciful beliefs and severely skewed/optimistic worldviews.

There aren't many people in power who understand reality unfortunately because everyone who got any power had to be very lucky to get it.

The people who get to power are often the least qualified to use it effectively because their entire existence is colored by a myth that everything just keeps getting better if you just set your mind to it.

No person who has ever attained power or success has ever had the first hand experience of hard work never paying off. Yet it is the normal experience of life for the vast majority of people. This realistic worldview demands a very different set of laws than what the typical person who attains power will provide.

[flagged]

You assume this is one-sided. For example how about for once we detail the two positions on immigration accurately. Each is of course misguided, and neither is moral by the standards of people using the position.

1) we don't want immigrants. They haven't done anything wrong but people will have a better situtation, better jobs, better house, better partner, better life. The rich will have to provide this if they don't have an alternative.

2) we want immigrants. We want them to work hard, for rewards that we consider beneath us, and then we don't even want to pay them what we promised. For example, if they are even suspected of the slightest of misdeeds over decades we take it all away.

In practice most political positions work like this. And worse than that: people just switch between these two. Make people rich, no real concerns, and the vast majority will be "pro-immigrant" (position 2). Take stuff away from people and they will almost all switch to "anti-immigrant" (position 1). And they'll make excuses such as pro-immigrant giving people better lives, and you hopefully see the problem with that. Pro-immigrant does not mean people want immigrants as equals, in fact the opposite. Anti-immigrant also has many excuses, such as that it prevents brain drain and allows the countries immigrants come from to improve faster. These excuses may even be true, but they're excuses, nothing more.

Conservatism would actually be encoding the differing treatment for the in-groups vs out-groups directly and explicitly into the law.

For example, under Jewish law a Gentile who commits theft against another Gentile is liable for the death penalty, whereas it is not a capital crime when a Jew commits theft against another Jew.

Liberals cannot even conceive of such a thing since it contravenes the basic premise of liberalism so they can only conceptualize it in the way you outlined.

And by the way, this means that this in-group vs out-group thing (“two-tier justice system”) happens under liberal regimes, it just doesn’t get acknowledged officially.

We’re talking about a basic human sociological reality that is modeled incorrectly by liberalism.