social "justice"

[Advocate]

Black studies, women's studies, etc. should be rebranded as History of Oppression, which is the majority of what they're about. The cultural stuff otherwise is part of the common heritage of humanity and belongs to everyone.

And we must resist the urge to brand people as oppressed because of their external appearance. Only by their acts can we know them, and the real person is hidden away inside.

We are all individuals regardless of how we self-identify and what luck popped us out as. Some people identify with their race/gender/age/etc. and some do not. Justice, social or otherwise, must be individual to be justice.

[Impenitent]

individual justice is an oxymoron

-Imp

[Walker]

Justice, social or otherwise, must be individual to be justice.

Would that be referring to justice dispensed by the individual, or justice received by the individual?

[Advocate]

[quote=Walker post_id=564579 time=1647569301 user_id=11599]
[quote=Advocate post_id=564261 time=1647435933 user_id=15238][u]Justice[/u], social or otherwise, [u]must be individual [/u]to be justice.
[/quote]
Would that be referring to justice dispensed by the individual, or justice received by the individual?
[/quote]

The subject of it must be accounted for as a unique being in all positions.

[Walker]

The subject of it must be accounted for as a unique being in all positions.

To some extent, which varies with changing popular opinion, and as a political weapon.

Consider the soldier, and the executioner.

As a rule, they are not judged as individuals unless they break the rules of war, or break society’s rules of executing condemned individuals, or become scapegoats for failed policies.

Cops too, to a lesser extent, are exempt for applications of force that would land an individual in the hoosegow if acting as an individual, and not an agent.

Social justice warriors, such as BLM, assume that they are a society, thus exempting the individuals in the society from judgment. And when Leftist politicians at all levels of government give implicit and explicit endorsements to such groups, the assumptions of the social justice warriors carry more weight.

[DPMartin]

Black studies, women's studies, etc. should be rebranded as History of Oppression, which is the majority of what they're about. The cultural stuff otherwise is part of the common heritage of humanity and belongs to everyone.

And we must resist the urge to brand people as oppressed because of their external appearance. Only by their acts can we know them, and the real person is hidden away inside.

We are all individuals regardless of how we self-identify and what luck popped us out as. Some people identify with their race/gender/age/etc. and some do not. Justice, social or otherwise, must be individual to be justice.

don't you know that if you are perceived as a victim then people will believe you must be in the right. just like media today is portraying the Ukraine as a victim. as long as media, that is trusted and believed continues to portray a people a nation or a race as victims, the prejudice continues. and notice how the media acts like you should be outraged, and some morons are.

[Immanuel Can]

don't you know that if you are perceived as a victim then people will believe you must be in the right.

Good point.

It's not at all clear that just because somebody is in a "down" position relative to somebody else, that that makes them any morally
"higher," anymore than it makes them morally "lower." It just makes them "in a different position."

But I think there's more to it. "Social justice," as a phrase, has the adjective for a reason.

"Justice" used to mean, "Each individual gets what he/she deserves or has merited." But "social justice" means that the alleged "injustice" is not so much the result of any individual person as it is said to be "systemic." To say it's "systemic" is to say it's a feature of "the system," a collective noun that NeoMarxists apply to the status quo of anything -- the "system" is the police, the businesses, the governmental structures, the way things are done culturally, the relgious institutions, the regnant social patterns, the infrastructure...etc. (Everything but the public education system, which they already own almost entirely.) And they allege that the "injustices" felt by "marginalized communities" are products of these "institutionalized" or "systemic" features.

Because the "injustice" is said to be "social," not individual, it can never be located and eliminated. It can be claimed to exist permanently, and "social justice warriors" can use it as a perpetual excuse to riot, beat up Asians, steal from businesses, burn down cities, overthrow laws, and so on -- because all destruction to the status quo is considered by them to be a revolutionary act against "social injustice."

Now, you might wonder why looting a Target store for Nikes or burning a car dealership to the ground for fun can be considered actions of "revolutionary" zeal...but when you understand that the entire status quo -- they system complete, the present instutitions, rules and economics, etc. -- are the locus of the alleged "injustice," even looting the computer store serves the purpose of destabilizing an element of the status quo. And the owners of the shop are not considered "victims," but rather "colluders with the status quo," who can be called "Nazi" and punched at wiil.

This, too, explains why you be black or hispanic and still get called a "white supremacist" or a "racist." What it means to the SJWs is "a cooperator with the existing (racist) order of things: a "systemic" racist. And you can be a fat woman and be called a "fatphobic misogynist," not because you're personally either, but because you are deemed by the SJW court-in-the-street to be "complicit with the fatphobic-misgogynist system."

The upshot: in social justice terms, you're not allowed to exempt yourself from their ideology. If you do, you're a colluder with the status quo, and they'll hate you. They'll find a way to hate you later anyway, because that's all they ever really do; but they'll hate you faster and burn your house down sooner if you show that you're not impressed with their juvenile preening, or if you seem not to be joining their frenzy.

[DPMartin]

don't you know that if you are perceived as a victim then people will believe you must be in the right.

Good point.

It's not at all clear that just because somebody is in a "down" position relative to somebody else, that that makes them any morally
"higher," anymore than it makes them morally "lower." It just makes them "in a different position."

But I think there's more to it. "Social justice," as a phrase, has the adjective for a reason.

"Justice" used to mean, "Each individual gets what he/she deserves or has merited." But "social justice" means that the alleged "injustice" is not so much the result of any individual person as it is said to be "systemic." To say it's "systemic" is to say it's a feature of "the system," a collective noun that NeoMarxists apply to the status quo of anything -- the "system" is the police, the businesses, the governmental structures, the way things are done culturally, the relgious institutions, the regnant social patterns, the infrastructure...etc. (Everything but the public education system, which they already own almost entirely.) And they allege that the "injustices" felt by "marginalized communities" are products of these "institutionalized" or "systemic" features.

Because the "injustice" is said to be "social," not individual, it can never be located and eliminated. It can be claimed to exist permanently, and "social justice warriors" can use it as a perpetual excuse to riot, beat up Asians, steal from businesses, burn down cities, overthrow laws, and so on -- because all destruction to the status quo is considered by them to be a revolutionary act against "social injustice."

Now, you might wonder why looting a Target store for Nikes or burning a car dealership to the ground for fun can be considered actions of "revolutionary" zeal...but when you understand that the entire status quo -- they system complete, the present instutitions, rules and economics, etc. -- are the locus of the alleged "injustice," even looting the computer store serves the purpose of destabilizing an element of the status quo. And the owners of the shop are not considered "victims," but rather "colluders with the status quo," who can be called "Nazi" and punched at wiil.

This, too, explains why you be black or hispanic and still get called a "white supremacist" or a "racist." What it means to the SJWs is "a cooperator with the existing (racist) order of things: a "systemic" racist. And you can be a fat woman and be called a "fatphobic misogynist," not because you're personally either, but because you are deemed by the SJW court-in-the-street to be "complicit with the fatphobic-misgogynist system."

The upshot: in social justice terms, you're not allowed to exempt yourself from their ideology. If you do, you're a colluder with the status quo, and they'll hate you. They'll find a way to hate you later anyway, because that's all they ever really do; but they'll hate you faster and burn your house down sooner if you show that you're not impressed with their juvenile preening, or if you seem not to be joining their frenzy.

Well, if we restrict this to the US of A the manipulation by media is the culprit. For example, back in the day media manipulated the public view in Vietnam that the US was losing, and the facts are that the US won the day in every battle with the enemy in that conflict. When the republicans were having their national convention, they made it look like there were hundreds if not thousands protesting outside by manipulating the camera’s view, and I do believe there was less than a hundred if even 20 or 50. They want you to believe that the camera doesn’t lie, but the holder of the camera is a liar.
No different then what is going on today to gain some political, economic advantage. Magicians use the look at this hand while I do something with the other, and that’s probably what is happening as we speak in this case. Today its kind of tuff to just go and get what you want from others just because you can, in ancient days they did so at will. Now its advisable to find a work around. In the US its not against the law to overthrow the gov. but its against the law to overthrow the gov with violence.
Having and maintaining an enraged portion of the population is good for media, to assert their dominance in public opinion. in some movie a character who was a reporter said about what was news worthy was if it scares grandma and pisses off grandpa its news worthy, an example of its not about information. its about what can be used to manipulate the public.

[Immanuel Can]

don't you know that if you are perceived as a victim then people will believe you must be in the right.

Good point.

It's not at all clear that just because somebody is in a "down" position relative to somebody else, that that makes them any morally
"higher," anymore than it makes them morally "lower." It just makes them "in a different position."

But I think there's more to it. "Social justice," as a phrase, has the adjective for a reason.

"Justice" used to mean, "Each individual gets what he/she deserves or has merited." But "social justice" means that the alleged "injustice" is not so much the result of any individual person as it is said to be "systemic." To say it's "systemic" is to say it's a feature of "the system," a collective noun that NeoMarxists apply to the status quo of anything -- the "system" is the police, the businesses, the governmental structures, the way things are done culturally, the relgious institutions, the regnant social patterns, the infrastructure...etc. (Everything but the public education system, which they already own almost entirely.) And they allege that the "injustices" felt by "marginalized communities" are products of these "institutionalized" or "systemic" features.

Because the "injustice" is said to be "social," not individual, it can never be located and eliminated. It can be claimed to exist permanently, and "social justice warriors" can use it as a perpetual excuse to riot, beat up Asians, steal from businesses, burn down cities, overthrow laws, and so on -- because all destruction to the status quo is considered by them to be a revolutionary act against "social injustice."

Now, you might wonder why looting a Target store for Nikes or burning a car dealership to the ground for fun can be considered actions of "revolutionary" zeal...but when you understand that the entire status quo -- they system complete, the present instutitions, rules and economics, etc. -- are the locus of the alleged "injustice," even looting the computer store serves the purpose of destabilizing an element of the status quo. And the owners of the shop are not considered "victims," but rather "colluders with the status quo," who can be called "Nazi" and punched at wiil.

This, too, explains why you be black or hispanic and still get called a "white supremacist" or a "racist." What it means to the SJWs is "a cooperator with the existing (racist) order of things: a "systemic" racist. And you can be a fat woman and be called a "fatphobic misogynist," not because you're personally either, but because you are deemed by the SJW court-in-the-street to be "complicit with the fatphobic-misgogynist system."

The upshot: in social justice terms, you're not allowed to exempt yourself from their ideology. If you do, you're a colluder with the status quo, and they'll hate you. They'll find a way to hate you later anyway, because that's all they ever really do; but they'll hate you faster and burn your house down sooner if you show that you're not impressed with their juvenile preening, or if you seem not to be joining their frenzy.

Well, if we restrict this to the US of A the manipulation by media is the culprit.

Yes, partly right. They're the publicists for it.

They've figured out that instead of just "reporting" the news in any way ambitious to remain objective or neutral, they can get more influence and more power by pitching for a single team, and using their platform to deceive instead of inform the public. Not all of them, of course, but certainly the major players.

...the holder of the camera is a liar.

That's exactly right. But people continue to suppose that if they've "seen" something, they can't be being fooled. That's just basic biology; we're visually-directed creatures, who rely very heavily on our faculties of sight to guide our footsteps.

Having and maintaining an enraged portion of the population is good for media, to assert their dominance in public opinion.

Yes. That tactic is old, and it's known as "rabble rousing." You gin up anger in one part of the population against another, in order to seize control of the majority. Hitler did it with the Jews, Stalin with the Kulaks, Mao with the "anti-revolutionaries," Islamists with "infidels," and so on.

It's a primitive tactic, but unfortunately, it really seems to work. People keep falling for it.

[Walker]

Well, if we restrict this to the US of A the manipulation by media is the culprit. For example, back in the day media manipulated the public view in Vietnam that the US was losing, and the facts are that the US won the day in every battle with the enemy in that conflict. When the republicans were having their national convention, they made it look like there were hundreds if not thousands protesting outside by manipulating the camera’s view, and I do believe there was less than a hundred if even 20 or 50. They want you to believe that the camera doesn’t lie, but the holder of the camera is a liar.

True.

Another example is, no cameras are allowed on empty audience spaces when Biden is speaking.

Conversely, Trump sometimes yells at the cameras to turn around and show the tens of thousands of people who came to hear what Biden cannot say.

Funny about that, Biden getting all those votes because the camera holder has to lie about his popularity.

[Immanuel Can]

Black studies, women's studies, etc. should be rebranded as History of Oppression,

Almost: they should be rebranded as "The Amplified, Distorted and Sectarian Pseudo-history of Oppression," because that's what they really trade in.

The cultural stuff otherwise is part of the common heritage of humanity and belongs to everyone.

It depends on what one means by "culture," of course. Art, literature or architecture might be candidates for a pool of some sort of common cultural artifacts, but if we include journalism, entertainments, and other such things, suddenly "culture" becomes more propaganda then art. Look at how wretchedly bad the plot-writing in Hollywood is right now, and you'll see what I mean. They spend so much time putting the requisite gestures to political propaganda into their stories that most are boringly predictable, simplistic and overtly preachy, rather than artfully engaging.

And we must resist the urge to brand people as oppressed because of their external appearance. Only by their acts can we know them, and the real person is hidden away inside.

MLK agreed with you. But modern Social Justice ideology dislikes everything King stood for, even while keeping the occasional tip of the cap to King as an icon. The last thing they want is people to be judged on the "content of their characters" as King said: they want people judged by race, sex, proclivities, disabilities, and so on.

Justice, social or otherwise, must be individual to be justice.

But introducing the idea of "social" justice brings back in their package of nonsense, so that's not a good move.

[DPMartin]

That's exactly right. But people continue to suppose that if they've "seen" something, they can't be being fooled. That's just basic biology; we're visually-directed creatures, who rely very heavily on our faculties of sight to guide our footsteps.

Having and maintaining an enraged portion of the population is good for media, to assert their dominance in public opinion.

Yes. That tactic is old, and it's known as "rabble rousing." You gin up anger in one part of the population against another, in order to seize control of the majority. Hitler did it with the Jews, Stalin with the Kulaks, Mao with the "anti-revolutionaries," Islamists with "infidels," and so on.

It's a primitive tactic, but unfortunately, it really seems to work. People keep falling for it.

Its human nature that which humans can’t escape. Like being under the influence, the moment you forget you’re under the influence it takes over.
But to get back to the subject at hand, I don’t believe in a free speaking thinking society there is such a thing as social justice. I am free to hate you just because you were born in a city I wasn’t, or your hair isn’t the color I like, and I’m free to say so. One’s feelings isn’t justifiable for prosecution. Offensive words or behavior is relative to the offended. These quacks who think others should adjust to their thinking and they shouldn’t have to understand or adjust to the world around them have managed to find media voice via again, the perception of being "victim". which seems to be the major contributor to the fallacy of social justice.

[DPMartin]

Well, if we restrict this to the US of A the manipulation by media is the culprit. For example, back in the day media manipulated the public view in Vietnam that the US was losing, and the facts are that the US won the day in every battle with the enemy in that conflict. When the republicans were having their national convention, they made it look like there were hundreds if not thousands protesting outside by manipulating the camera’s view, and I do believe there was less than a hundred if even 20 or 50. They want you to believe that the camera doesn’t lie, but the holder of the camera is a liar.

True.

Another example is, no cameras are allowed on empty audience spaces when Biden is speaking.

Conversely, Trump sometimes yells at the cameras to turn around and show the tens of thousands of people who came to hear what Biden cannot say.

Funny about that, Biden getting all those votes because the camera holder has to lie about his popularity.

i heard all kinds of things like that, one was, a candidate for some office had his videos remove by YouTube because he is a Trump supporter. its become a shameless SOP. they betray the nation that made them.

[Immanuel Can]

I don’t believe in a free speaking thinking society there is such a thing as social justice. I am free to hate you just because you were born in a city I wasn’t, or your hair isn’t the color I like, and I’m free to say so. One’s feelings isn’t justifiable for prosecution. Offensive words or behavior is relative to the offended. These quacks who think others should adjust to their thinking and they shouldn’t have to understand or adjust to the world around them have managed to find media voice via again, the perception of being "victim". which seems to be the major contributor to the fallacy of social justice.

Yes, there are all kinds of ironies in their position, and one is in their intolerance. They claim to be the most tolerant of all people, advocating for the marginalized, as they call them -- but they silence, censor, bully, exclude, deplatform, shout down and lock out anybody who even raises a question about their narrative. Nobody is so intolerant in practice.

No wonder one of their own, writing to try to convince them to open up, has labelled them "the new Victorians." Like the stodgy Victorians of legend, they are full of censorious high-mindedness.

And you're right: if there is any such thing as "justice" it can exist only on the level of the individual actor, with his individual conscience and personal moral responsiblity, answering to an objective standard of rightness. Otherwise, there's no such thing.

[DPMartin]

I don’t believe in a free speaking thinking society there is such a thing as social justice. I am free to hate you just because you were born in a city I wasn’t, or your hair isn’t the color I like, and I’m free to say so. One’s feelings isn’t justifiable for prosecution. Offensive words or behavior is relative to the offended. These quacks who think others should adjust to their thinking and they shouldn’t have to understand or adjust to the world around them have managed to find media voice via again, the perception of being "victim". which seems to be the major contributor to the fallacy of social justice.

Yes, there are all kinds of ironies in their position, and one is in their intolerance. They claim to be the most tolerant of all people, advocating for the marginalized, as they call them -- but they silence, censor, bully, exclude, deplatform, shout down and lock out anybody who even raises a question about their narrative. Nobody is so intolerant in practice.

No wonder one of their own, writing to try to convince them to open up, has labelled them "the new Victorians." Like the stodgy Victorians of legend, they are full of censorious high-mindedness.

And you're right: if there is any such thing as "justice" it can exist only on the level of the individual actor, with his individual conscience and personal moral responsiblity, answering to an objective standard of rightness. Otherwise, there's no such thing.

amen brother

it makes me think of some one able to sell ice to the Eskimos, or dare i say, the serpent in the garden of Eden that convinced Eve to be as or like gods yet they were already in God's likeness and image. they are serpents my friend. they are selling social freedom to those who are already free.