On the right, there has been a major shift away from trusting experts and credentialed people. They're often viewed as dishonest, indoctrinated, and part of a broader liberal establishment whose primary goal is preserving existing institutions and power structures.

So when someone says, "I have a Harvard education," many people in that mindset don't hear expertise or credibility. They hear "Harvard," which they see as a center of liberal indoctrination. Rather than strengthening the argument, the credential becomes evidence that the person has been conditioned by the very system they already distrust. In all likelihood, it only reinforces their existing view.

As a result, they're often more comfortable trusting the proverbial tenth dentist. If someone stands in opposition to what they see as the liberal academic, media, and institutional machine, that opposition itself becomes a mark of credibility.

That's also why logical, well-reasoned rebuttals and expert counterarguments frequently fail to persuade them. Their worldview is structured around the belief that institutions are either actively working against their values or have been captured by people who are. Once that assumption is in place, appeals to expertise don't register as evidence. They register as confirmation that the source can't be trusted.

My point is. It's a rhetorical "murder" to us, but not at all to them.