We don't get to 'Trans Rights are human rights' and Queering without Civil Rights first.
Anti-Socialism was used by Bolshevics to further revolution. Meanwhile, Democratic Socialists used anti-Communism to further their revolution (this is what the 3rd arrow represents in 3 arrows). The use of a philosophical concept is irrelevant, as the concept itself is irrelevant. It is merely a tool. Claims about basic human liberty and freedom of speech are also wielded against us by Leftists.
There is no concept that will not be used by a Leftist as a means to power, hence there is no point citing one idea, and claiming that that is inherently Leftist.
If you've read Queer Theory, you would see it's not based in Civil Rights, it's based in Marxism. Queer Theory never needed Civil Rights, but it was an easy avenue of attack. Same with Freedom of Speech. Queer Theory doesn't even rely of Civil Rights to propagate itself, but a form of Cultural Marxism by doing everything in it's power to subvert and destroy familial and romantic relationship. Civil Rights is simply a single avenue of approach, whereas the real damage is entirely done outside of the bounds of Civil Rights: outside any legal framework. The destruction and poisoning of interpersonal relationships with family and lovers is the primary act of revolutionary terror.
I just notice the tribalism and the alignment with the minority against the host country's status quo, for better (as in the case of Civil Rights, broadly speaking) and for worse (as in the case of the Intersectionalism which has followed.)
Again, if you read the actual work of Intersectionalists, they specifically cite the Civil Rights constructs as a major impediment. Because the concept of Civil Rights along a Liberal framework promotes a rejection of both positive and negative incentive; meaning that no revolutionary class can form because there is no system of oppression to address. Worse, the Civil Rights laws also required the specific identification of what discrimination was being done. Intersectionality was invented to get around Civil Rights law by creating infinite classes and groups, being able to demand infinite rights, and turning each "intersection" as another revolutionary class, and then demanding that the revolutionary coalition be formed from there. Intersectionality rose as blow back to Civil Rights, not out of them.
And that's even assuming your presupposition of "minority against the host" is true, which it's not. The host is simply not damaged by removing legislation that is racially targeting that group for sanction, and separating them out (rather than allowing them to integrate) from the host community. I do not recognize the moral value of Zimbabwe's racial laws.
I think that Liberalism itself will fail, though, because no bargain can be kept with the leftist elements, especially if they educate new revolutionaries against every status quo. This is a problem with revolutionaries and bargain-making as a response to them.
Civil Rights is something I agree with in principle because there isn't good moral warrant for the use of oppressive force on Racial grounds, but take issue with as a bargain struck with revolutionaries. The revolutionaries will absolutely continue agitating along different grounds while using our morality itself against us.
The reality is that the policing of anti-social behavior among Blacks continued to the Justice System in America after Civil Rights, with mixed results. I look at NYC halting 'stop and frisk' laws in much the same way: "So the old model's gone. Fine. Now we have more crime. What are we going to do about it?"
I also disagree here:
The host is simply not damaged by removing legislation that is racially targeting that group for sanction, and separating them out (rather than allowing them to integrate) from the host community.
Cultural integration cannot be assumed. A lack of integration is precisely the cancer afflicting the host.
The type of freedom we could agree on is only possible when the institutions of education are used for acculturation and immigration is kept low-- neither of which is happening in modern day America. The cultural and intellectual legacies which make the US individualist (and thus free) are being actively eroded.
Without integration the US's Rainbow future accelerates along the same course as South Africa's vibrant democracy, just at a slower velocity.
Anti-Socialism was used by Bolshevics to further revolution. Meanwhile, Democratic Socialists used anti-Communism to further their revolution (this is what the 3rd arrow represents in 3 arrows). The use of a philosophical concept is irrelevant, as the concept itself is irrelevant. It is merely a tool. Claims about basic human liberty and freedom of speech are also wielded against us by Leftists.
There is no concept that will not be used by a Leftist as a means to power, hence there is no point citing one idea, and claiming that that is inherently Leftist.
If you've read Queer Theory, you would see it's not based in Civil Rights, it's based in Marxism. Queer Theory never needed Civil Rights, but it was an easy avenue of attack. Same with Freedom of Speech. Queer Theory doesn't even rely of Civil Rights to propagate itself, but a form of Cultural Marxism by doing everything in it's power to subvert and destroy familial and romantic relationship. Civil Rights is simply a single avenue of approach, whereas the real damage is entirely done outside of the bounds of Civil Rights: outside any legal framework. The destruction and poisoning of interpersonal relationships with family and lovers is the primary act of revolutionary terror.
Again, if you read the actual work of Intersectionalists, they specifically cite the Civil Rights constructs as a major impediment. Because the concept of Civil Rights along a Liberal framework promotes a rejection of both positive and negative incentive; meaning that no revolutionary class can form because there is no system of oppression to address. Worse, the Civil Rights laws also required the specific identification of what discrimination was being done. Intersectionality was invented to get around Civil Rights law by creating infinite classes and groups, being able to demand infinite rights, and turning each "intersection" as another revolutionary class, and then demanding that the revolutionary coalition be formed from there. Intersectionality rose as blow back to Civil Rights, not out of them.
And that's even assuming your presupposition of "minority against the host" is true, which it's not. The host is simply not damaged by removing legislation that is racially targeting that group for sanction, and separating them out (rather than allowing them to integrate) from the host community. I do not recognize the moral value of Zimbabwe's racial laws.
Your argumentation makes sense.
I think that Liberalism itself will fail, though, because no bargain can be kept with the leftist elements, especially if they educate new revolutionaries against every status quo. This is a problem with revolutionaries and bargain-making as a response to them.
Civil Rights is something I agree with in principle because there isn't good moral warrant for the use of oppressive force on Racial grounds, but take issue with as a bargain struck with revolutionaries. The revolutionaries will absolutely continue agitating along different grounds while using our morality itself against us.
The reality is that the policing of anti-social behavior among Blacks continued to the Justice System in America after Civil Rights, with mixed results. I look at NYC halting 'stop and frisk' laws in much the same way: "So the old model's gone. Fine. Now we have more crime. What are we going to do about it?"
I also disagree here:
Cultural integration cannot be assumed. A lack of integration is precisely the cancer afflicting the host.
The type of freedom we could agree on is only possible when the institutions of education are used for acculturation and immigration is kept low-- neither of which is happening in modern day America. The cultural and intellectual legacies which make the US individualist (and thus free) are being actively eroded.
Without integration the US's Rainbow future accelerates along the same course as South Africa's vibrant democracy, just at a slower velocity.