Is Social Justice a disease? (Page 1/21)
2.5 JAN 07, 12:14 PM
"What Is Social Justice?
Social justice is a political and philosophical theory which asserts that there are dimensions to the concept of justice beyond those embodied in the principles of civil or criminal law, economic supply and demand, or traditional moral frameworks. Social justice tends to focus more on just relations between groups within society as opposed to the justice of individual conduct or justice for individuals.


Historically and in theory, the idea of social justice is that all people should have equal access to wealth, health, well-being, justice, privileges, and opportunity regardless of their legal, political, economic, or other circumstances. In modern practice, social justice revolves around favoring or punishing different groups of the population, regardless of any given individual's choices or actions, based on value judgements regarding historical events, current conditions, and group relations. In economic terms, this often means redistribution of wealth, income, and economic opportunities from groups whom social justice advocates consider to be oppressors to those whom they consider to be the oppressed."

If this is what it is, how could one say it isnt?
It is a tool used to divide people.
It leads to lack of actual justice for individuals.

Ever since it became popular I have always thought "Social" and "Justice" don't go together, that isnt a thing.
Want to change my mind? Agree with me?
I'm listening.
I find Social Justice dangerous and think it can not and will not lead to where it claims it should and wants to.

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 01-07-2021).]

williegoat JAN 07, 12:35 PM
In my opinion, the phrase "social justice" is nothing more than Newspeak. It is used to make some tenets of communism more palatable. Instead of saying "redistribution of wealth" or "equality of outcome", just say "social justice".

Social justice is as absurd as baseball justice or kitchen justice. It means whatever the speaker wants it to mean.
williegoat JAN 07, 12:45 PM
If (as is the belief of many progressives) all social structures are equally valid, on which society is social justice based?

Is an Islamic theocracy equally as just as Western civilization? What about Chinese society? Who decides?

The Seattle chop zone, did they exemplify social justice?

[This message has been edited by williegoat (edited 01-07-2021).]

theBDub JAN 07, 05:55 PM
Is it a disease...? No...

Social justice is interesting. It's often that there is no right decision, just one that is more correct than another. Take the following statements and possible actions as an example:

White men make up more of senior leadership at F500 companies than their "share" of the population. That's not necessarily an issue on its own, just a fact. People everywhere have a tendency to favor those who look, talk, and act like them. That's not necessarily an issue on its own, just a fact. Take these two facts together and you end up in a vicious cycle of what amounts to racism and sexism, even if it's unconscious. These white men promote other white men more than others, not because they're white men, simply because they think like them and have similar backgrounds to them. They value certain leadership traits that have made them successful, traits that are most found in people that look and act like them.

If you start from a point of equity, where everyone is fairly represented, then that's no issue. Even if it's not at equity, but it's fairly representative to the market/industry (like minority women in construction or white men in nursing), I'd say that's probably no issue, as people will overall be promoted at parity even with unconscious bias towards people who look like them. But if you don't start from a point of parity, then it's a cycle. Those leaders not only promote people that look like them, they have children born into a higher socioeconomic class, who then have more opportunity provided to them, who go to better schools, get a better education, and have a better resume to allow them to compete better even on a completely fair ground. So it's this perpetuating system where the people at the top benefit.

Well, even if I convince you to agree that this is an issue... what are the remedies?
* Unilaterally fire anyone who is overrepresented and have full quotas. Well, that seems terrible. You'd just be firing people for their race. This is the opposite of what we want.
* Keep things where they are, but put out campaigns to try and raise the talent pool, and let it equal out over the next 50-100 years. Well, that doesn't seem right either. In that time, people will continue to be underrepresented, and there is still no guarantee that it'll fix itself (given the vicious cycle mentioned earlier)
* Promote underrepresented people more aggressively to fill the gaps. Well, this doesn't hit it either. You're still harming someone in the overrepresented group for their race/sex.
* Do nothing. This doesn't address the issue at all, and harms underrepresented people materially. The "do nothing" option artificially benefits White men.

Those are basically the only four options. So you really just have to pick the best one. I'd argue the third is probably the least harmful overall, and promotes eventual equity. But I can understand if you find that to be wrong. The issue is, we have to do something, and none of the options are harmless to all parties. That's why social justice is a contentious issue.
maryjane JAN 07, 06:59 PM

quote
White men make up more of senior leadership at F500 companies than their "share" of the population.



Why, is that even an issue?
Is it 'written' anywhere, that in private or public owned business, the overall population demographics of this or any other nation has a damn thing to do with who is 'in charge' of those businesses?

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-07-2021).]

olejoedad JAN 07, 07:10 PM

quote
Originally posted by theBDub:

Is it a disease...? No...

Social justice is interesting. It's often that there is no right decision, just one that is more correct than another. Take the following statements and possible actions as an example:

White men make up more of senior leadership at F500 companies than their "share" of the population. That's not necessarily an issue on its own, just a fact. People everywhere have a tendency to favor those who look, talk, and act like them. That's not necessarily an issue on its own, just a fact. Take these two facts together and you end up in a vicious cycle of what amounts to racism and sexism, even if it's unconscious. These white men promote other white men more than others, not because they're white men, simply because they think like them and have similar backgrounds to them. They value certain leadership traits that have made them successful, traits that are most found in people that look and act like them.

If you start from a point of equity, where everyone is fairly represented, then that's no issue. Even if it's not at equity, but it's fairly representative to the market/industry (like minority women in construction or white men in nursing), I'd say that's probably no issue, as people will overall be promoted at parity even with unconscious bias towards people who look like them. But if you don't start from a point of parity, then it's a cycle. Those leaders not only promote people that look like them, they have children born into a higher socioeconomic class, who then have more opportunity provided to them, who go to better schools, get a better education, and have a better resume to allow them to compete better even on a completely fair ground. So it's this perpetuating system where the people at the top benefit.

Well, even if I convince you to agree that this is an issue... what are the remedies?
* Unilaterally fire anyone who is overrepresented and have full quotas. Well, that seems terrible. You'd just be firing people for their race. This is the opposite of what we want.
* Keep things where they are, but put out campaigns to try and raise the talent pool, and let it equal out over the next 50-100 years. Well, that doesn't seem right either. In that time, people will continue to be underrepresented, and there is still no guarantee that it'll fix itself (given the vicious cycle mentioned earlier)
* Promote underrepresented people more aggressively to fill the gaps. Well, this doesn't hit it either. You're still harming someone in the overrepresented group for their race/sex.
* Do nothing. This doesn't address the issue at all, and harms underrepresented people materially. The "do nothing" option artificially benefits White men.

Those are basically the only four options. So you really just have to pick the best one. I'd argue the third is probably the least harmful overall, and promotes eventual equity. But I can understand if you find that to be wrong. The issue is, we have to do something, and none of the options are harmless to all parties. That's why social justice is a contentious issue.




Competition - it's a fact of life.

Its what drives the progress that Mankind has made over the eons.

The very concept of "Social Justice" works against competition and progress.

(Edited because my smart phone changes words.)

[This message has been edited by olejoedad (edited 01-07-2021).]

randye JAN 07, 07:20 PM
There is no such thing as "social justice".

It is simply a concocted term created to have any word prefaced to it in order to complain about any imagined "right" that someone wants to complain about.

Our justice in this country is codified by our enacted LAWS and is adjudicated in our courts of proper jurisdiction.

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 01-07-2021).]

Hudini JAN 07, 07:31 PM

quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:
Competition - it's a fact of life.

Its what drives the progress that Mankind has made over the eons.

The very concept of "Social Justice" works against competition and progress.

(Edited because my smart phone changes words.)




Exactly. The concept of "Equality of Outcome" is just another Socialist dream state that has failed wherever it has been tried. We have Equality of Opportunity. Everyone has a free education to grade 12. In my state you can even get a two year degree in a Community College for free.

Even here in communist China it is competition that drives everything except the government. Intense competition for schools, jobs, prices, products, etc. The Chinese have learned the hard way. When will we learn?
olejoedad JAN 07, 07:52 PM

quote
Originally posted by Hudini:


Exactly. The concept of "Equality of Outcome" is just another Socialist dream state that has failed wherever it has been tried. We have Equality of Opportunity. Everyone has a free education to grade 12. In my state you can even get a two year degree in a Community College for free.

Even here in communist China it is competition that drives everything except the government. Intense competition for schools, jobs, prices, products, etc. The Chinese have learned the hard way. When will we learn?



Our parents knew it, I know it, my kids know it.....and thrive on it.

Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

But ya gotta go for it anyway.
maryjane JAN 07, 07:55 PM

quote
Originally posted by olejoedad:
But ya gotta go for it anyway.



Look,
I understand too little too late
I realize there are things you say and do
You can never take back.
But what would you be if you didn't even try?
You have to try
So after a lot of thought
I'd like to reconsider.
Please..
If it's not too late,
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Make it a cheeseburger

[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-07-2021).]