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 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.