Is "social justice" ever a good thing? -

[Joan Nyan]

I was reading the "Are SJWs evil" thread and saw several people saying social justice is a good thing but not what SWJs practice. I didn't want to derail that thread but I do wonder what definition of social justice is being used and why it's a good thing.

 

[Beaniebon]

Well techincally the civil rights movements of the mid 1900s, womens sufferage of the early 1900s, legal gay marriage advocates, and all of that are social justice. Social justice is just activism for an oppressed group. Of course, opressed groups do actually exist.

 

[Joan Nyan]

Well techincally the civil rights movements of the mid 1900s, womens sufferage of the early 1900s, legal gay marriage advocates, and all of that are social justice. Social justice is just activism for an oppressed group. Of course, opressed groups do actually exist.

What's the difference between social justice and civil rights then?

 

[Beaniebon]

What's the difference between social justice and civil rights then?

It's two words for the same thing. Social justice warriors are people who take it too far or just use the name of social justice to feel better than others.

There might be a minor difference in that civil rights usually involve laws whereas social justice can involve laws but can also just be advocating against oppressive aspects of a culture.

 

[Gym Leader Elesa]

It's two words for the same thing. Social justice warriors are people who take it too far or just use the name of social justice to feel better than others.

There might be a minor difference in that civil rights usually involve laws whereas social justice can involve laws but can also just be advocating against oppressive aspects of a culture.

I think it's mostly a difference in tone, with the exception of the fact that civil rights isn't generally viewed as being ideological in nature* but a thing most people "have" and a thing some "civil rights activists" would like to extend to others. The right to vote, the right to not be enslaved, the right to work, whatever. Social Justice tends to be more ideological in the sense that's an all encompassing world view while civil rights is more of a "case-to-case" basis of "we have x right to we extend it to y."

You also have that tone difference I mention. Social justice as a term comes off as more aggressive because to many people it implies there is a wrongdoer, a criminal, an enemy, whereas civil rights is a pretty neutral term. Social justice as an ideology requires a great sin of some kind to fight because it has no reason to exist otherwise and takes it a step farther outside of the political sphere. It's not just that "x group will be equal if they have the right to vote", there needs to be reparations, social change, reforms, etc- justice.

*civil rights as a concept is a fairly recent invention historically, however, and many more reactionary-leaning individuals like myself would make the case that believing human beings have certain "inalienable" human and civil rights is ideological in nature, not an inherent, universal, trait of being human. But this is mostly pedantic asshat-ery.

 

[DuskEngine]

I think it's mostly a difference in tone, with the exception of the fact that civil rights isn't generally viewed as being ideological in nature* but a thing most people "have" and a thing some "civil rights activists" would like to extend to others. The right to vote, the right to not be enslaved, the right to work, whatever. Social Justice tends to be more ideological in the sense that's an all encompassing world view while civil rights is more of a "case-to-case" basis of "we have x right to we extend it to y."

Suffragist/emancipation politics tended to be pretty strident and morally outraged in tone. It also predates the concept of human and civil rights as we understand it today.

If anything I'd say the major difference is that social justice also generally encompasses economic, social and cultural rights, which tend to be more expansive than civil rights.

 

[ICametoLurk]

Yes, where else can we get most of our laughs from?

 

[DrunkTails]

On paper social justice makes sense. People try to stand up against injustices that the greater justice system has either unfairly or poorly handled. Much of the modern court cases are handled using older cases as examples of how to deal with them. This in turn can cause sentences to be handed badly due to different situations. Sometimes there is the possibility of corruption when an injustice has been made.

The problem is the practice of social justice.

As shown on these forums SJ is the source of much hilarity. Mostly due to idiotic reasons, these people cause unnecessary ruckus that causes others to join their 'cause' and bring 'justice'. These reasons include:

• 'harassment' from a person because they disagreed with them on an opinion
• somebody didn't know their proper pronouns
• being white, straight, male or all of them
• being rejected for not having the proper qualifications for a job

The list can go on to infinity, but the gist of things is this; Social justice is a perverted form of civil rights movement. The phrase 'Social Justice' has become a byword for harassment by those who claim to be harassed but in reality are a bunch of assholes being the school yard bully whilst putting up the image of martyrs for a 'just' cause.

 

[Rainbow Puppy]

there is no justice

life is inherently unfair and there is nothing at this time human beings can do about it

social justice achieves nothing but the celebration and pursuit of weakness

 

[JU 199]

there is no justice

life is inherently unfair and there is nothing at this time human beings can do about it

social justice achieves nothing but the celebration and pursuit of weakness

3edgy5me

 

[CatParty]

are two threads a good thing?
https://kiwifarms.net/threads/are-sjws-evil.25856/

 

[Mozzarella Dicks]

Social Justice can overlap with actual justice on accident. Like when Chris parrots words of wisdom that he isn't going to follow.

That is when "social justice" is a good thing, when they say good things like "racism is bad". But these small times of being good and right in part only make it hypocritical when they turn around and be racist or whatever.

 

[Puppet Pal Clem]

Social justice is not a partisan platform.

It's the use of social influence and power to enact perceived "justice" outside of the law.

Three conceptual examples:
1) Collective of store owners dislike black people and use their right to refuse service to disallow black people in their stores, so that black people can't live in their neighborhood and must leave.
2) Young college student Johnny makes an intelligible argument in Female Studies class how not all sex is rape, and is collectively shamed by the woman's studies department and publicly called a rapist, leading other students who don't understand the context of their argument to really believe he's a sexual predator.
3) Child Bobby is not a good sharer, so none of the children want to play with him or be his friend, until he learns to be a better sharer.

The difference here is the pretense of "justice".
It's generally fine in mild forms that enforce social norms, but horrific in instances that affect how other people maintain a living or reputation.

 

[Cosmos]

Please don't let dumbass SJWs taint your view on social justice. It's like thinking all Christians are horrible, intolerant bigots because of the Westboro Baptist Church.

Like others have said, the goal of social justice is to make sure that all members of a society are treated equally in regards to civil rights, opportunities they're given, privileges they have as citizens, and their standard of living. Unfortunately, racism, sexism, and ableism (discrimination against physically and/or mentally disabled people) haven't been purged from our society. Even though, according to the law, we're all equal, many social factors prevent that from actually being the case.

 

[Mozzarella Dicks]

If what you want is equal treatment and justice, what you want is equality and justice.

Social Justice isn't the same thing as equality.

 

[Cosmos]

Social Justice isn't the same thing as equality.

How is that not the same thing as equality?

 

[Mozzarella Dicks]

View attachment 161103
How is that not the same thing as equality?

The same way Black Lives Matter isn't about promoting the idea that black lives are of equal value to those of other races, and that feminism isn't about equality of women to men. It's not about what people say it means but about what people who promote it demonstrate it means.

 

[ObeseScreamingBlackMan]

'SJW' as a term has the same problem as 'alt-right'

It's way too loose and nebulous and all too often just becomes 'anyone I don't like with political views to the left of my own'. Just like how the opposite side calls any person on the right they dislike 'the alt right'.

Both terms lose any real impact as a result.

That said, most of the SJWs KIwi Farms finds are indeed complete assholes and make good thread fodder. We're like Potter Stewart. We know it when we see it.

 

[Rainbow Puppy]

3edgy5me

bud u havent changed much have u

Please don't let dumbass SJWs taint your view on social justice. It's like thinking all Christians are horrible, intolerant bigots because of the Westboro Baptist Church.

Like others have said, the goal of social justice is to make sure that all members of a society are treated equally in regards to civil rights, opportunities they're given, privileges they have as citizens, and their standard of living. Unfortunately, racism, sexism, and ableism (discrimination against physically and/or mentally disabled people) haven't been purged from our society. Even though, according to the law, we're all equal, many social factors prevent that from actually being the case.

sounds good only problem is people are not equal

please share genius plan to change this that does not involve giving weaker ppl things they havent achieved and bringing stronger people down a peg

might be hard to understand but modern life doesn't just grow on a tree. someone has to achieve the things we have. they don't just appear out of thin air and then everyone can have prosperity. even as a small puppy i already understand this. seems like common sense

 

[ZeCommissar]

It's not about people being equal to me, it's about being equal under the eyes of the law (just because you are rich, black, white or whatever doesn't mean you get more/less of a sentence compared to someone else that did the same thing.)

Also people are not superior by birthright, only someone that has achieved nothing would claim their superiority because they were born rich, a certain race, or whatever. You sure as hell don't achieve anything by just being born, since y'know you had no choice you wanted to be born or not.

Also discrimination over things you can't control like race, what class you were born into, etc.

Things that you CAN control? Like how you act, what you believe in? CAN be discriminated against, which is why we have lolcows