Why do we hate social justice?

originally posted by: RAY1990
Just a general question...

Why do we hate social justice?

Personally I think social justice is a good thing, I'd like fair and equal representation concerning law. I'd like equal pay for equal labor, I'd like to know I have the same rights as that guy.

If social justice was about JUSTICE, then it would be a good thing. However, it is not. Social justice has become a catch phrase for sycophants to use when something does not go their way. They spout off about things without knowing, using, or caring about facts, and typically they are the ones being biased, racist, or cruel while making their spoiled SJW points.

a reply to: RAY1990

Because now it's associated with whiney crybabys and an elevated sense of entitlement, not with meting out justice.


If SJW's only focused on Social Justice in a responsible manner, then likely it would have been seen as extremely benevolent - much like Sliwa's Guardian Angels.

a reply to: RAY1990

Just a general question...

Why do we hate social justice?

Personally I think social justice is a good thing, I'd like fair and equal representation concerning law. I'd like equal pay for equal labor, I'd like to know I have the same rights as that guy.

Because there is no such thing as social justice. There is only justice. And justice can only ever pertain to individuals, not groups.

a reply to: jdelattre89

a reply to: jdelattre89

That's the thing, SJW's are not acting in a justified way whoever a SJW is supposed to be.

a reply to: RAY1990

Nothing is wrong with equality, helping those in need, standing up for rights.

But the SJW's don't do that.

They think tweeting about the hungry equates to actually feeding the hungry.
They think tweeting about the homeless equates to finding/providing shelter to the homeless.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

There is such thing as protected characteristics though and people are still judged by those characteristics. Sexuality, sex and skin colour.

If multiples are being discriminated against then it becomes an issue with society as a whole. So yes although technically and lawfully it's individual cases of sexism or racism it cannot be denied an issue with society at large is in effect.

Maybe social justice is a bad term, though large scale discrimination does occur, gentrification still happens for instance.

Does anyone hate social justice?
I think the noble of idea of social justice has been hijacked and the back lash is against the misuse of the ideal for political and social control.

a reply to: DBCowboy

And they get your whiskers in a twist?

Being honest I don't see much being done by them other than raise awareness and from what I gather many seem to make it about themselves in a high horse kind of way.

Many people do decent things and hate gratification, being honest most people are supportive and accepting of others... I'm still not sure I get this whole SJW phenomena.

a reply to: RAY1990

They are generally just annoying.

a reply to: UKTruth

But doesn't all groups and ideas that are supposed to be fundamentally good get hijacked by the more extreme of us?

Like environmental protection, something most agree on then you have the hardcore protestors who attack research labs and logging camps.

BLM, now every member of that group wants white cops dead and reparations. I'm sure that isn't the case but we kinda insinuate that at times with the broad strokes on the canvass.

a reply to: RAY1990

Delivering justice according to group characteristics is no different than discriminating according to group characteristics. Sometimes members of those groups do not deserve justice, or ones that do are not given enough. If it isn't taken on a case by case individual basis, we can never know if the correct amount of justice is being delivered.

Soon, every subgroup and specificity will be demanding justice, thereby diluting what justice is. I think those who have shy bladder syndrome were upset when Rob Lowe did a commercial where he couldn't pee. Soon, no one will take justice seriously.

We can be either just or unjust to another human being. There is no other justice.

a reply to: RAY1990

You have two kid's in a room, one has a large bar of chocolate and the other nothing..

In one scenario the fat kid's parent's tell him to share a little of his chocolate with his thin and hungry friend, in another scenario they teach him that greed is good and it is the skinny kid's own fault that he has nothing so not to share and maybe making his friend jealous will motivate him.

The most frustrating thing for me is that even american pastor's often promote greed saying it is the poor's own fault and literally spit in the face of the god they are supposed to be serving, that same Jesus whom said "as you treat the least of these so do you treat me" and "If your brother has no coat and you have two give him the one you are not using" as well as many other related subject's, he also told the rich to go and sell all they own, give to the poor and come and follow him, it was not Marx who invented socialism he was just an atheist.

But hey in a twisted self righteous state of mind and decades old brainwashed populace what can you expect, there best candidate whom actually cared about THEM was bernie sanders and he never stood a chance so?.

Back over here in the UK the Tory's are laughing at the poor going to the food bank's and getting ever more desperate while they and there associate's get ever richer so this is a global evil and indeed show's the tentacles of Satan reach very deep into there heart's.

Social justice, heaven seem's to be the only place it exist's, the least shall be first and the first least - it is there that those that served are served and those that used are forced to serve.

Here is a youtube video I just found that explain's it perfectly.


The title of the above video show's that some delusional right winger actually wanted to use this as an example claiming that THIS video was brainwashing, so the truth to them is actually brainwashing, unless it is a case of reverse psychology on the video with is quite likely, in order to get the right wing brainwashed to watch the video and see.

a reply to: Now2016

Social Justice Warrior=Toxic?

Like anything else, it depends greatly upon the means to reach the desired end.

As for that little girl? More of a warrior than 99% of us will ever be.

People don't hate "social justice." I work and study social justice, mostly on the anti-poverty end. It's my career.

What is beginning to turn people off is identity politics, which is now conflated with traditional social justice. But you are right that the real old-school goals are right, and just.

originally posted by: RAY1990

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: RAY1990

Because sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.

I'm a firm believer in self-defense but that doesn't answer my question.

I think SJW's is a poorly coined phrase and overly used. I'm on about social justice.

SJW refers to the extremists, and identity politics folks, not the old school activists that believe in equality. But that monicker SJW is well earned by some. It's those people who say things like "only white people can be racist," or "if you don't support Hillary you are sexist." It ignores any real policies, character, actions, etc, and instead only sees people ironically in iron-clad categorical identity classes. It is ironically in violation of traditional social justice principles such as not judging people by their race, gender, or other identity, and instead by their actions.

Dont see why anyone would be bothered.

a reply to: RAY1990

People have different ideas in mind when we talk about justice. There are two notions of "equal before the law." On the one hand, you have the more conservative and traditional idea that we make a law and it applies the same to everyone regardless of who those two are or any circumstance surrounding. It goes with the saying that "justice is blind." That means that if the law says the rich white man wins, he wins ... even if the other claimant is a poor, crippled, lesbian, Arab with two learning disabilities and three kids. It doesn't even matter if lady didn't intend to break the law.

The converse notion is that the law exists to be "fair" and even us all out, to force equality of outcome on us all, which is a very different interpretation of "equal before the law." That is the version of social justice that SJWs are after, and the subversive element in it all is that they believe that they can only achieve this in a centrally planned and controlled state apparatus. They will call it a social democracy, but the end result will be a tyranny as they make a law to curtail every little perceived inequality between this or that group of people to knock some down to the advantage of others.

And it never works because no matter how hard you try, you will always advantage some more than you intend and disadvantage others more than you set out to. So you are really just picking winners and losers with the arbitrary force of law and there is never any consistency for anyone.

a reply to: LABTECH767

You forgot the other half of the equation.

True charity is when the parents teach the child to notice that others have not and to share ... freely.

But I am minded of Obama's version of "sharing" which is when one kid has a sandwich and the other doesn't and the teacher comes and take the sandwich and gives each kid half. There is no free sharing there; that is force. That is what SJWs want.

Or to use your example: One kid has the chocolate and the parents of the other kid without come and take his chocolate and give half (or less) to their kid and scold the first kid for being a fat greedy slob and then teach their kid to hate the first one for even having had the chocolate in the first place.

a reply to: ketsuko

Sharing as you correctly state it is what as a Christian my god want's but the other side of the coin is that he stated the world an the fullness thereof are his, those that refuse to share are obviously the Tare's in his field but forcing them to share would hide there presence so free will is indeed paramount in order to let the multi billionaire pension fund stealing criminal's dig there own grave's in his sight but then it is not just them as Jesus made a point about the poor woman giving more in God's sight with her two penny's than the rich guy even though the rich guy put a lot more shekel's into the collection you see it was never the money God wanted and it all went to the priests or to serve maintainance cost' on the building but it WAS the heart and the sacrifice - the act of giving freely even when it hurt the giver whom could ill afford it that he wanted.

Socialism is an ideal though and for the sake of the children you must acknowledge a fair and equal playing field is better to ensure that the poor kid's have as good an opportunity to achieve in life as the rich kid's do and the rich kid's are not greedy they are just born into the wealth, that giving (of one self) can be as hard for the rich though as it is for the poor and the same level of failure can be present in both, after all they are the same in God's sight - at least when they are young but God does not like slavery and a runaway and dedicated capitalist system exploits' and enslaves the mass of the population, some it grind's into the earth into such abject poverty and misery that word's fail as if the system is still trying to squeeze them for anything they have left, a system that is patently wrong.

I encourage you to read the old testament again, look at how the land was divided not horded before the stupid people wanted a man as there kind instead of there god, look at how the law's were constructed so that even the poorest had enough and compare it to this world of today in which the greedy are oppressing the poor, harming the innocent and even destroying the ecology in order to pursue there own short term gain's and corporate interest's, it is truly indefensible.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So. The law only works individually, case by case, person by person.

I won't try to understand the US legal system, I'll just assume a corporation for instance cannot be held liable for actions such as a sexist hiring policy.

I'll assume that if hirelings of a company feel they are not being payed the legal minimum wage or are illegally being overworked then those cases would be dealt with individually even if a clear case of large-scale law breaking has happened.