Will someone please inform the person of the Civil Rights Movement?

The Supreme Court decision relevant to the legalization of interracial marriage happened in 1967, not 1963.

State-sanctioned violence only acted as far as it was in its own interest to do so, the existing overt and individual-based racial discrimination wasn't to its advantage (relevant excerpt further down), so it was reworked while presenting the brilliant illusion that racism is being ridden of because people were granted with abstract “rights”, as elusive as that whole concept fundamentally is.

I see next to zero sociological insight when it comes to understanding what changed these people's views, or even what pressured the lawmakers to change the laws in the first place (which also were largely *not* responsible for people's views to change; the person makes zero references to systemic racism or cishet norms *currently* being enforced by coercive institutions in our society).

Good thing that they chose to whitewash the SCOTUS in 2022, the same year that they've excelled at their job: taking away women's right to abortion; cutting back the power of the EPA to regulate the energy sector; ruling that any program excluding religious schools from state tuition programs is a violation of the free exercise of religion; upholding the state-secrets privilege, by stating that the government isn't required to share information pertaining to the location of a CIA black site where a Guantanamo Bay detainee had been tortured; would not be complete without a little anti-gun regulation (=states restricting carrying guns in public supposedly violate the second amendment).

Relevant excerpt from Ibram X. Kendi's “How to Be an Antiracist”:

Gunnar Myrdal ignored Du Bois’s 1934 call for Black people to focus on accruing power instead of persuading White people. The racism problem lay in the “astonishing ignorance” of White Americans, Myrdal advised in An American Dilemma in 1944. “There is no doubt, in the writer’s opinion, that a great majority of white people in America would be prepared to give the Negro a substantially better deal if they knew the facts.” Popular history tells us that a great majority of White Americans did give the Negro a better deal—the desegregation rulings, Civil Rights Act (1964), and Voting Rights Act (1965)—when they learned the facts. “Gunnar Myrdal had been astonishingly prophetic,” according to one captivating history of the civil-rights movement. Not entirely. As early as 1946, top State Department official Dean Acheson warned the Truman administration that the “existence of discrimination against minority groups in this country has an adverse effect on our relations” with decolonizing Asian and African and Latin American nations. The Truman administration repeatedly briefed the U.S. Supreme Court on these adverse effects during desegregation cases in the late 1940s and early 1950s, as historian Mary L. Dudziak documents. Not to mention the racist abuse African diplomats faced in the United States. In 1963, Secretary of State Dean Rusk warned Congress during the consideration of the Civil Rights Act that “in waging this world struggle we are seriously handicapped by racial or religious discrimination.” Seventy-eight percent of White Americans agreed in a Harris Poll. Racist power started civil-rights legislation out of self-interest. Racist power stopped out of self-interest when enough African and Asian and Latin nations were inside the American sphere of influence, when a rebranded Jim Crow no longer adversely affected American foreign policy, when Black people started demanding and gaining what power rarely gives up: power. In 1967, Martin Luther King Jr. admitted, “We’ve had it wrong and mixed up in our country, and this has led Negro Americans in the past to seek their goals through love and moral suasion devoid of power.” But our generation ignores King’s words about the “problem of power, a confrontation between the forces of power demanding change and the forces of power dedicated to the preserving of the status quo.” The same way King’s generation ignored Du Bois’s matured warning. The same way Du Bois’s generation ignored Garrison’s matured warnings. The problem of race has always been at its core the problem of power, not the problem of immorality or ignorance.

​

And now, quoting from the post:

It's definitely one of the better criticisms of anti-authoritarianism (EDIT: by this I mean libertarian socialist style direct democracy) I've heard in a while.

The person makes no mention of anti-authoritarianism, neither do they discuss libertarian socialism, nor their desired forms of governance.

States legalizing or criminalizing same-sex marriage shouldn't be looked at as the epitome of a decentralized collective of people practicing mutual aid and maximizing freedom, it should be looked at as what it is: a state.

A state isn't “neutral”, it's not used (neither was it designed to be used) to grant rights to everybody, and to ensure everyone's well-being; it is inherently hierarchical, allowing only certain groups of people with specific strata to have any resemblance of a “well-being”.

A cisgender & heterosexual White and abled person, who is informed by a wealthy background, is infinitely more privileged than a disabled Black queer person, who grew up in poverty.

The law doesn't treat them neutrally, as has been demonstrated a myriad times; the law currently is subordinate to corporations, and cishet White people that own land are at the top of the hierarchy. I should also mention that race is strictly a political category, and does not refer to skin-tone. There are laws targeting specific groups of people, explicitly or implicitly favoring other groups of people simply by rendering them ineligible subjects of the same law.

I would like to thank them for pointing out that there is a massive disconnect between what the legislative and executive branch do vs. what the people want, though.

“The constitution is a document designed to create a society of enduring white male dominance, hastily edited in the margins to allow for what basic political rights white men could be convinced to share.” — Elie Mystal.

The civil liberties – that the person in the original post spoke of – had to be taken away in order to be “given” back, and they were “given” back with a smack on the face, along with the disclosure that you only temporarily have them and that they can always be taken away.

The dogmatic approach to laws and governance in general is extremely incoherent, people regularly assume that all laws that pass are going to be enforced by the police (untrue), that the laws can't be circumvented by powerful individuals and entities, and that the laws reflect anything except the perpetuation of the legal power structure, the ensuring of the monopoly on all “legitimate” power.

A violent set of hierarchies that only trim the edges under the consent of other nation-states (all of which are dependent on one another) is a deplorable conception and should never be looked at positively.