[boxed]

That anti-liberalism was born out of liberalism doesn't make liberalism wrong.

It's like saying all dinosaurs were birds because birds evolved from dinosaurs. It just doesn't follow that a weird offshoot now defines the entire group retroactively back in time. It makes no sense to think like this logically.

[bagxrvxpepzn]

Your argument is unironically "real Liberalism hasn't been tried yet." "critical theory" and "identity politics" are not "weird offshoots," they are unavoidable consequences of Liberalism. No matter how many times you try Liberalism it will degenerate into exactly the current situation we are facing now.

Failing to acknowledge the structural flaws of Liberalism just opens up an opportunity for ideological revolution. If the adherents of Liberalism prefer moderation, they better had start acknowledging how it's failing people. "Just Liberal harder" won't work forever.

[boxed]

> Your argument is unironically "real Liberalism hasn't been tried yet."

No, it's been tried, and most of us are living in it right now. You are attempting a strawman badly.

> "critical theory" and "identity politics" are not "weird offshoots," they are unavoidable consequences of Liberalism.

First of all "identity politics" is just the new name for "tribalism". It's older than the human race. So leave that out.

For the rest: nope. Why did it take literally hundreds of years from the start of the Enlightenment for critical race theory to go totally crazy? If it's inevitable, it should be much faster. Look at communism which inevitably becomes just garden variety authoritarian dictatorship. How long does that take? Less than a year seems to be the pattern. THAT is what inevitable from the seed looks like.

I seriously hope your definition of liberalism is very different from mine, because you're not making much sense...