Conservatives (conserving fundamental human rights and principles) feel that fairness applies to everyone, so freedom of speech applies to even people they don't agree with. Thus, the diversity of opinions on this 2A discussion forum.
Liberals (who are liberal with definitions, morality, ethics. science and changing the goal posts) do not offer the same respect or fairness to everyone and freedom of speech only applies to those they do not disagree with. Conservatives who post differing opinions on liberal-controlled software, websites, video channels, etc. are censored, and their opinions and ideas deleted.
Conservatives feel that everyone has the right to equal opportunity, regardless of race, gender, etc. but if you fail the test, then you failed the test. You can try again and again, however, if you want to work hard to pass it.
Liberals use equality of outcome (e.g., someone who works hard and someone who is lazy, should earn the same amount of money at the end of the month) instead of equality of opportunity. Everyone should pass the test (except for people they don't like).
Conservatives rely on logic, rationality, human compassion, and science to make decisions.
Liberals rely and feed on emotions to influence and reinforce each other's often irrational decisions and actions, and liberally redefine logic and science and ethics to fit the narrative they want.
Rhaydar may beg to differ about diversity of opinions here hehe.
Liberals tend to look at fairness more on a group level. So seeing that people are treated equally, equal opportunities, not being bullied, etc. Some look at equality of outcome but I think a lot look for equal opportunity (Not the same thing) These aren't right or wrong ways of looking at fairness per se, just different from how conservatives look at fairness.
As for freedom of speech, there are deffinitely liberals who will walk all over the 1st amendment but I would contend that there is still a solid chunk of liberals who are strong believers in the 1st amendment. The ones that are trashing free speech are absolutely a threat to society but we should differentiate between them and other liberals.
As a conservative I would love to prove that we rely more on logic, science, and rationality but sadly we don't. Maybe we do it a little more than liberals but we still fall prey to the elephant going where it wants. There are multiple studies that prove this mentioned in the book, I could dig some up if you are interested. I see times when conservatives ignore science, not consciously, but it happens when the elephant pulls away due to loyalty or some other foundation. We still rely on emotions, they just are within a different framework than that of liberals. Case in point, look how angry some people get when they see their flag being burned or when someone defiles a war memorial. There are all sorts of exceptions on both sides but I am not going to go down that list.
Johnathan Haidt sets out 6 social/moral foundations.
1. Fairness/cheating -
2. Harm/Justice
3. Authority
4. Loyalty
5. Purity
6. Liberty
Across multiple cultures Liberals score high on valuing Fairness/Harm and Harm/Justice and quite low on the other on the other moral foundations. Conservatives on the other hand test lower for Fairness and Justice but overall they are much more balanced among the moral values. So liberals are more likely to want to reduce harm (stop bullying, protect animal rights, more pollution regulation) and reduce unfairness (close wage gap, socialized medicine, affirmative action) but they are less concerned with authority, purity, loyalty, etc. It is not that they are more irrational per se than conservatives but they are rational within the moral frameworks they have. So along comes a mass shooter and having a stronger desire to reduce harm they push harder to try and stop it.
The problem with liberals defining conservatives and conservatives defining liberals is neither side does a very good job at accurately doing so.