There’s no more perfect example of cognitive dissonance than straight, white conservative males using the platform of their privilege to protest the oppression of straight, white conservatives in Australia.

It’ll be prevalent this week with the “Christian perspectives” edition of Q&A, where – presumably – a well-educated, wealthy, white man will make the oft-repeated declaration that, “It is getting harder to be a Christian in Australia,” accompanied by hyperbolic and baseless descriptions of religious persecution, prophecies of societal devastation and warnings to the church to “be on guard”.

Conservatives, the argument goes, face increasing opposition when voicing their opinions and so, it must follow, the liberal media is intentionally fomenting anti-conservative hatred while intentionally robbing them of a fair hearing.

One can only imagine how truly vulnerable communities would yearn for the elevated platform given to the conservative worldview through the likes of former-prime minister Tony Abbott, current deputy prime minister, numerous senators and MPs, Andrew Bolt, denominational leaders, religious institutions and well-funded lobby groups.

Add the historical influence of the church and the media’s penchant for conflict the reality is clear – far from being persecuted, in today’s Australia the conservative voice is amplified and disproportionately powerful.

While it’s true that voicing your opinion in public can be difficult at times, there’s a vast difference between being a victim of discrimination and the reality of fewer people agreeing with you than you’re used to.

Whenever you add your voice to the public arena – on social media, as a columnist or televised talking head, or at the pub with friends – you’ll encounter the discomfort of disagreement. At times it’ll be mean, nasty and hateful.

This can’t be equated with the prosecution of a minority group, it’s the reality of entering the debate. Progressives abuse slightly-less-progressives, greedy capitalists scorn bleeding heart socialists, Ricky Gervais insults people of faith and the patriarchy condescends to feminists. It’s not easy being someone who takes a public stand – but the disagreement of others cannot be equated in any way to the experience of people who by virtue of their sexuality, ethnicity, religion or politics are culturally, systematically or structurally excluded from full participation in society.

Likewise, the right to hold to a particular world view is not damaged by the reduced popularity of that world view. One can continue to be a climate change denier for as long as there’s a climate – just as you can disagree with marriage equality or the Safe Schools curriculum – without the privilege you possess as a straight, white, wealthy Australian being in any way diminished.

The way to win a debate of any kind is not to publicly mourn your declining influence, as though the public should apologise for not believing the same things you do; it’s not to blame the insidious agenda of people of differing ideology, theology or faith, as if you are not also promoting an agenda by all the means at your disposal; and it’s certainly not to harangue those who disagree with you for being complicit in the destruction of life as we know it.

It’s to have a better argument.

Perhaps, instead of attempting to co-opt Christ into protecting their privilege, certain conservatives could consider Jesus’ model of presenting his agenda to the public: sacrificing his rights, reputation, social status and even his life to stand in solidarity with the bullied, excluded and marginalised.

That’s the kind of argument that will always retain its relevance and power.