Social Justice Reformation

Working in community orientated NGOs and gov programs, this ideology has completely taken over.

For years now, I’d say going back to about 2012, the vast majority of colleagues around me are sjws.

I’m in the heart of the beast lol.

Managed to stay “sjw passing” luckily.
a reply to: projectvxn

After this Covington kid affair I think the ideology and culture really need to be addressed. Put the brakes on it.

Too many people just don’t say anything out of fear.
a reply to: projectvxn

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I agree with this.

Social justice as a brand or idea is toxic now thanks to this. I am not sure it can be reformed. As the mother of a son, I don't think I can afford to trust it.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14


Social justice as a brand or idea is toxic now thanks to this. I am not sure it can be reformed. As the mother of a son, I don't think I can afford to trust it.

I'm of the belief and hope that it can be reformed (though I like Propagandalf's idea of refashioning the idea as "justice," period.)

The site highlighted in OP gave my hopes a bit of validation!

But yes, I have a son also and the trajectory of this movement appalls me.

Thanks for reading.

Thanks! Important topic.
a reply to: zosimov

The thing is, we have to disaggregate this superimposed toxic ideology from the legitimate issues such as racism, poverty, etc. because those issues are real, we can’t just throw the baby out with the bath water. Unfortunately, a lot of people think these toxic extensions are one and the same with justice and addressing those issues, so criticism of the toxicity is seen as criticism of real justice.

a reply to: ketsuko

a reply to: zosimov

The thing is that social justice and justice are two different ideas.

Try reading a book by Thomas Sowell called The Quest for Cosmic Justice. It explains it better than I can, but basically, there are two different competing ideas floating around. Classic justice is the idea that we write a law, and that law applies the same no matter what.

If the law says you don't defraud someone, then you don't. It doesn't matter if the plaintiff is Bill Gates and the defendant is random poor dude who tried to lie about something to get an unearned and undeserved refund on an iPhone. Bill Gates wins if the poor guy tried to defraud him.

That's classic justice.

Social justice starts to say that we should re-examine that. The poor guy is so poor and Bill Gates is so rich that maybe the poor guy deserves to get his money back. Maybe the fraud isn't so bad because, you know, rich guys or corporations are only rich because they're inherently screwing over lots of poor guys (maybe not that *one* specifically, but ...), so the social justice judge might take it easy on the poor guy or even dismiss the case although clearly, the poor guy defrauded Bill Gates.

That's social justice.

One is the rule of law. It upholds our society and gives us a level of trust. We know what the rules are. We have a level of assurance in the system and know our rights are protected by a system that won't dish out arbitrary decisions based on social whims.

But start injecting social justice based on what you think is "fair" more than what the law itself says, and there is steadily eroding trust in the system. Society starts to break down. You cannot trust that your person and possessions will be safe from day to day because who can say whether or not the law will be upheld? Or if it is, whether or not it will be upheld in your favor.

That's why Sotomayor's "Wise Latina" remarks were disturbing, not for their racial overtones as much as for what they implied about her philosophy. Her personal experiential wisdom matter shouldn't matter in adjudicating. All that matters in her position is what the law says vis a vis the case before her. Whether or not she is latina changes the written law and case precedent not one wit, but she implied that it would make all kinds of difference.

That's social justice.

And in the end, the aim of social justice is to advantage those groups seeming to need to be privileged by law over those who are seen to be too advantaged. Of course, the only way to do this through the law is to legally disadvantage other groups. They will never be able to perfectly level everyone because, of course, not everyone in a collective is the same. So they will always hit some harder than they intended, ruining them, and elevate others more than they want because they didn't really need the help to begin with, but who's going to turn that down when offered?

The dirty secret they don't want to admit to is that we're all individuals in individual circumstances, much like trying to control an economy centrally fails for that reason, so will trying to control social circumstance.

a reply to: zosimov

for those who are truly interested in tackling real disparity and injustice

I was never terribly interested in any of that because it seems that its always the case that the solution to disparity and injustice is to take something away from me and to work somehow to make everything in the public square far less comfortable for me and those like me.

So, we have retreated to the margins of society, no longer comfortable with the present situation, and simply seek to be left alone.

a reply to: ketsuko

The social justice I'd be interested in would be solely revolved around empowering groups (perhaps through education, PTSD counciling, and technical training ? Just some ideas here) that our government/policies legally disempowered in even our near past (can you believe that the neighborhood my parents moved into in 1983 would not allow African Americans to reside there?)
I find this absolutely shameful and see how such programs as well as misapplied or abused attempts at reform by the left has residual effects today.

a reply to: ketsuko

But I will see what I can find about the book you linked.. thank you!

a reply to: zosimov

The problem is that in order for people to have their lives changed, they have to want to change. You can't give anyone anything and make a change.

Look at weight loss.

It is a lifestyle change. You have to remake how you eat and what you eat. I'm not talking about stuff that tastes bad. I'm simply talking about learning how to cook for yourself from scratch. Make simple choices, no processed stuff, no soda. Then control your portions.

But you can't do that unless you have help on the other end. People have to want to change.

You cannot do education and job training without cooperation from the people you are trying to help. It's a long process with no insta-payoff. Again, that's a lifestyle change. That's hard and most aren't into that.

a reply to: ketsuko

Can't disagree with a single thing you said.
Maybe where we might disagree is that I do believe there is a desire (Not under the illusion that this would be popular or even the end-all sollution... but do think there would be an audience!)

originally posted by: zosimov
a reply to: ketsuko

Can't disagree with a single thing you said.
Maybe where we might disagree is that I do believe there is a desire (Not under the illusion that this would be popular or even the end-all sollution... but do think there would be an audience!)

The thing about desire ...

In my job I get to see the setups in a lot of the section 8 complexes around the country. You have no idea how many of them offer programs and access to programs to their tenants to do the sorts of things you advocate. There are opportunities, but I think a lot of people tend to not take the long view.

They say, "OH, but that will take years ..." They don't want to make a lifestyle change.

It's the same with weight loss. You can look at the successful way to do it, but people either want a crash diet that will work "tomorrow" or they're not interested because you might only lose a pound or 1/2 a pound per week and that takes a lot of time. I've been losing my weight for a little over a year now, and I only really had about 40lbs to lose. Imagine weighing upward of 250 to 300.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: zosimov
a reply to: ketsuko

Can't disagree with a single thing you said.
Maybe where we might disagree is that I do believe there is a desire (Not under the illusion that this would be popular or even the end-all sollution... but do think there would be an audience!)

The thing about desire ...

In my job I get to see the setups in a lot of the section 8 complexes around the country. You have no idea how many of them offer programs and access to programs to their tenants to do the sorts of things you advocate. There are opportunities, but I think a lot of people tend to not take the long view.

They say, "OH, but that will take years ..." They don't want to make a lifestyle change.

It's the same with weight loss. You can look at the successful way to do it, but people either want a crash diet that will work "tomorrow" or they're not interested because you might only lose a pound or 1/2 a pound per week and that takes a lot of time. I've been losing my weight for a little over a year now, and I only really had about 40lbs to lose. Imagine weighing upward of 250 to 300.

Well done on the weight loss (my mom is doing great losing weight the hard and healthy way also!)... and yes, many will balk at the prospect of real change, some will try, but perhaps not so many will succeed.

I have lots of respect for anyone willing to make any change, be it small or big, to improve his or her future.

Here’s the thing guys, lots of people and orgs DO do that kind of work:

Evidence, expert, best practice, and community driven investments and programs.

I know that international development and aid get a lot of flak here, and with good reason, but those orgs are generally far less sjw, and more *real justice* along those lines. I used to work in and study those orgs.

There are a ton of people and orgs down with real justice and community work. They just get overshadowed by the greater identity politics debate which intersects with issues we work on.

a reply to: zosimov

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Good to know, and thanks to you and kets for these insights and for sharing your experience!

Glad to talk and interested in your thoughts too.
a reply to: zosimov

This is fantastic commentary.

Can't agree with some of what she says.

But the overall message is one of introspection and understanding why we believe the things we do.

At least for the Social Justice movements.

I still view it as political collectivism that does away with the individual for the sake of a "unified" view of society. I question it because it isn't real and never has been.

She wants to approach social justice with an academic mindset. I view the whole concept as invalid in general.

I have started looking askance at anyone who uses the word "woke," the latest SJW term du jour. Even the word is dumbed down from "awakened" to show how grass roots and homey it is. He/she/they are "woke" to me means that he/she/they have fallen into the pit of mindless identity politics and all of its fallacies. "Woke" means that they have swallowed the pill and now allow themselves to be conned knowing that they are being conned, save for the most naïve who actually believe this fantasy.

a reply to: projectvxn

Thank you for embedding this clip. I wanted to include this in the OP but don't know how to embed video that shows up on youtube with dashes and underscores (www.youtube.com...50&v=_-WimRb2jXs) so I didn't even try.

I, too, really enjoyed her commentary and also wasn't on board with everything she said, but loved her mindful and respectful approach to nuanced issues, and think having constructive dialogue with people like her could make a big difference.

I love how she starts out with this (and some might have to put aside their distaste for the word "wokeness" for a moment lol):
''I think wokeness has robbed many people of compassion and replaced it with moral superiority. Compassion and empathy is paramount to any social movement; and so, any form of progress, once you have compassion and empathy, you can often see that you have a lot more in common with people than you do apart. And it's the system under which we live in that forcefully tries to group us on our differences."

You have very valid point and I always have and always will favore individualism over collectivism. I truly believe that, until recently, our country in particular has done a great job in protecting the individual.

I have faith in people and think that individuals will still be more than willing to help each other out. (Obviously not EVERYONE but enough. I've seen it.)