On the prevalent anti-political moralism: The truth about policing "micro-aggressions"

The meaning of left-liberal talk of "micro-aggressions" is that:

1) Nothing can be contested or criticized, except individuals, on moral grounds. (This is because that the society is actually considered depoliticized, except for the morals of individuals. There, uniquely, the personal is politicized while the political is privatized and transformed into psychology.).

2) Because they are concerned about prejudices that affect uniquely members of oppressed minority groups, when the expression of such a prejudice can be discerned, inferred, or imputed, an ethical rule says that the conflict thus identified should be escalated. (This is because it is profitable for the cause.)

You can criticize people according to prevalent norms, but you cannot criticize the norms, or ways of thinking.

Right and left differ partly in this way. This is why the right tends to use scorn instead of argument in its criticisms; the right only sees social norms as something to be enforced.

Thus, the right is Kantian, the left Hegelian.

This is also why the right is more apt than the left to believe in God. Or rather, their God is author of the way things are in the world, and the state that enforces this acts in his name. The right is theistic because, and as, it is conservative, not conservative because it is theistic. (This is the dominant Protestant idea of God, which knows imperfection only as individual sin; it is not that of Judaism, whose image of the world is dynamic and incomplete.)