Anyone care to define social justice...?

[Mr. Perfect]

Ok, I think we may have to the first workable definition, we'll see what happens here.

So let's say if the people that committed the atrocity of Waco were brought to justice that would be social justice?

[noddy]

well its fairly obvious that "no killing, no stealing, no violence" criminal justice does cover much of the complaints of historical social justice eg:treatment of minorities and women

so the right wingers are saying you just need to make sure everyone gets proper criminal justice and any talk of new laws above and beyond that are eyebrow raising.

[Marcus]

well its fairly obvious that "no killing, no stealing, no violence" criminal justice does cover much of the complaints of historical social justice eg:treatment of minorities and women

so the right wingers are saying you just need to make sure everyone gets proper criminal justice and any talk of new laws above and beyond that are eyebrow raising.

No, I'm saying no such thing. The topic here is a definition of social justice, nothing more from me than that.

[noddy]

well its fairly obvious that "no killing, no stealing, no violence" criminal justice does cover much of the complaints of historical social justice eg:treatment of minorities and women

so the right wingers are saying you just need to make sure everyone gets proper criminal justice and any talk of new laws above and beyond that are eyebrow raising.

Well I actually provided information about the origins of social justice, and the issues the term was coined to address. The objections I've seen in this thread are so poor they amount to little more than trolling.

"What the HELL is BIOLOGY? Made up left wing bullshit, it's all just SCIENCE man. Stop shrieking."


The general level of discourse on this forum has steadily declined.

it has ebbs and flows.. probably depends on whats going on in the various peoples real worlds and how much patience they have left.

your just as prone to talking at cliches as any of the rest of us though, so alls well.

as for social justice, im still a tad confused so im not saying much.. all villages have it, yet not all villages have the same thing.. the cultural imperalism or arrogance of saying that their is one true social justice is a tad offputting to me.

for aslong as people only focus on worst case scenarios and refuse to acknowledge their is alot of diversity in the other scenarios, this conversation is tedious.

alas, im busy at work and procrastinating by being here, so im unable to flesh out this train of thought right now.. maybe ill get some time this evening..

[noddy]

rather than this wishy washy "everyone except idiots believes in social justice" approach which quite frankly leaves me confused, how about some of the flashpoints as they are in our exisiting social justices system of politics and law.

gender roles ? should they be enforced or anti enforced ? do the implications of the anti enforced (dual working families) create a situation were the women who wished to stay at home and do mothering struggle to do so because the housing market adjusted to double incomes, is this fairer ? is it wrong to choose to be a stay at home mother ? do we subsidise single working families ? should wage equality be forced ?

racial equality ? should we have quotas with punishments to force everyone to hire a statistically appropriate amount of each race that lives in a country ? is it fair to some poor sucker who is rejected because they arent one of the missing pieces ? is it good to be an employee of a place that doesnt like or want you and only does so cause they are forced ?

cultural priorities ? is everyone cut out to be a middle class office dweller with endless patience for gossip and the trivial ? what do we do with all the more primal, tribal types ? take their kids off em ? this is a biggen in my country, the interventionist left and right are endlessly bashing their heads against the aborigines, many of whom dont seem to want suburban utopia no matter how much they get offered it ... which i personally understand fully.

freedom of choices and tolerance for difference ? buahahaha dont get me started on this one, its a monomania but the short version is neither side of politics is particularly interested in it beyond their own pet agendas, you only have to witness this thread if you want a refresher on that.

so......

what are the "universally" agreed social justices, in practical form, for idiots who cant interpret mission statements ?

[Typhoon]

The simple forum rules | Code of conduct

For those posters that prefer the petty and the personal as their means of attempting an argument the natural level is found in Hell, not in Philosophy.

This thread will be subject to an ongoing clean up.

[Enki]

rather than this wishy washy "everyone except idiots believes in social justice" approach which quite frankly leaves me confused, how about some of the flashpoints as they are in our exisiting social justices system of politics and law.

gender roles ? should they be enforced or anti enforced ? do the implications of the anti enforced (dual working families) create a situation were the women who wished to stay at home and do mothering struggle to do so because the housing market adjusted to double incomes, is this fairer ? is it wrong to choose to be a stay at home mother ? do we subsidise single working families ? should wage equality be forced ?

anti-enforced. Individual liberty my friend.

racial equality ? should we have quotas with punishments to force everyone to hire a statistically appropriate amount of each race that lives in a country ? is it fair to some poor sucker who is rejected because they arent one of the missing pieces ? is it good to be an employee of a place that doesnt like or want you and only does so cause they are forced ?

No, I don't think racial equality should be enforced, but a safety net that recognizes the fact that all of the Earth is communal property all human beings should be in effect to recognize that those who become wealthy do not do so in a vacuum.

cultural priorities ? is everyone cut out to be a middle class office dweller with endless patience for gossip and the trivial ? what do we do with all the more primal, tribal types ? take their kids off em ? this is a biggen in my country, the interventionist left and right are endlessly bashing their heads against the aborigines, many of whom dont seem to want suburban utopia no matter how much they get offered it ... which i personally understand fully.

Social justice isn't about enforcing cultural priorities, it's only about making sure that people have equal protection under the law in actual fact.

freedom of choices and tolerance for difference ? buahahaha dont get me started on this one, its a monomania but the short version is neither side of politics is particularly interested in it beyond their own pet agendas, you only have to witness this thread if you want a refresher on that.

Assumes that there are 'two sides' in politics.

so......

what are the "universally" agreed social justices, in practical form, for idiots who cant interpret mission statements ?

That people's race, gender, and other identity characteristics should not impact how they are treated by the law.

[Marcus]

What point are you trying to make? It seems that you are trying hard to misunderstand the term "social justice." . .

Az, the point that I am making is "social justice" has much to do with politics and little to do with Justice.

Justice is universal, immutable, and eternal.

"Social justice" is regional, changeable, and political.

Adding "social" to justice adds absolutely nothing to the definition of Justice. All the addition of "social" to justice accomplishes is to muddy the definition of justice and to politicize the pursuit of justice.

[Ibrahim]

What point are you trying to make? It seems that you are trying hard to misunderstand the term "social justice." . .

Az, the point that I am making is "social justice" has much to do with politics and little to do with Justice.

So according to your definition e.g. equal rights for women and minorities would be "politics" not "justice."

Justice is universal, immutable, and eternal.

No. Owning people used to be legal, and was considered just by most from the dawn of history to the 19th century. Now it is considered abhorrent and illegal. What is considered justice clearly changes.

Adding "social" to justice adds absolutely nothing to the definition of Justice.

It specifies an aspect of the pursuit of justice, just like biology specifies an area of scientific inquiry.

All the addition of "social" to justice accomplishes is to muddy the definition of justice and to politicize the pursuit of justice.

Incorrect, as explained above.

[Mr. Perfect]

"Earth is communal property", how did I know that was going to work in there?

[Marcus]

What point are you trying to make? It seems that you are trying hard to misunderstand the term "social justice." . .

Az, the point that I am making is "social justice" has much to do with politics and little to do with Justice.

1) So according to your definition e.g. equal rights for women and minorities would be "politics" not "justice."

Justice is universal, immutable, and eternal.

2) No. Owning people used to be legal, and was considered just by most from the dawn of history to the 19th century. Now it is considered abhorrent and illegal. What is considered justice clearly changes.

Adding "social" to justice adds absolutely nothing to the definition of Justice.

3) It specifies an aspect of the pursuit of justice, just like biology specifies an area of scientific inquiry.

All the addition of "social" to justice accomplishes is to muddy the definition of justice and to politicize the pursuit of justice.

Incorrect, as explained above.

1) If minorities and women are people, then Justice is all that's needed.

2) Owning another person has always been a violation of Justice. Owning property in another person's labor has always been and still is legal.

3) Nope. Science and Justice do not equate. One is physical, the other metaphysical. One is particular, the other universal.

Go mull that over . . .

[Ibrahim]

What point are you trying to make? It seems that you are trying hard to misunderstand the term "social justice." . .

Az, the point that I am making is "social justice" has much to do with politics and little to do with Justice.

1) So according to your definition e.g. equal rights for women and minorities would be "politics" not "justice."

Justice is universal, immutable, and eternal.

2) No. Owning people used to be legal, and was considered just by most from the dawn of history to the 19th century. Now it is considered abhorrent and illegal. What is considered justice clearly changes.

Adding "social" to justice adds absolutely nothing to the definition of Justice.

3) It specifies an aspect of the pursuit of justice, just like biology specifies an area of scientific inquiry.

All the addition of "social" to justice accomplishes is to muddy the definition of justice and to politicize the pursuit of justice.

Incorrect, as explained above.

1) If minorities and women are people, then Justice is all that's needed.

The movement that forced the justice system to recognize the equality of women and minorities is called social justice.

2) Owning another person has always been a violation of Justice.

You don't seem to have an historical appreciation of what a modern and novel idea this is. Most of human history, and all religious texts, have tacitly accepted slavery. The position you are taking is a very modern one, roughly as old as the concept of social justice itself.

3) Nope. Science and Justice do not equate. One is physical, the other metaphysical. One is particular, the other universal.

This statement is not coherent. Essentially you are trying to deny that specific categories of larger concepts exist, and you are not able to convincingly do so.

Combined with your other concession so far, you already essentially admit that social justice exists, in in fact seem to concur with most of its objectives. You just object to the term itself, even though the term is widely accepted and over a century old. You aren't even making an argument to this effect, just repeating the basic claim.

[Marcus]

. . so far, you. . seem to concur with most of its objectives. You just object to the term itself, . .

Close enough . .

[Mr. Perfect]

You don't seem to have an historical appreciation of what a modern and novel idea this is. Most of human history, and all religious texts, have tacitly accepted slavery.

Not the New Testament.

The position you are taking is a very modern one, roughly as old as the concept of social justice itself.

I'm wondering when someone is going to define social justice. Tinker says for example that it has to do with the earth being "communal property", which of course has essentially no bearing on the unique issues of women' suffrage or black segregation in the Democrat South.

Ymix's definition sounds like old fashioned US conservatism, giving people the freedom to improve their own lives and the lives of others if they choose to do so. In this respect I like social justice, and my commitment to it precludes me from ever voting for a Democrat. Democrats have destroyed disadvantaged minority communities for decades, something I could never abide by.

[Typhoon]

The cleanup of this thread, however imperfect, is now done.

Given the limitations of the moderator tools and thus the time a cleanup takes,
any future thread that contains posts that do not meet the board code of conduct
will be completely split off at the 2nd post,
regardless of merit,
and sent straight to Hell.

[Mr. Perfect]

I would like to thank CS and Ymix, this is the best moderation of a political forum I have ever seen. Many thanks.

[YMix]

That's unexpected.

You're welcome.

[Mr. Perfect]

You know me, I have to operate in the truth, and the truth is you guys have got forum moderation right and you have my gratitude and admiration. Keep it up, I know you will.

[AzariLoveIran]

.

I would like to thank CS and Ymix, this is the best moderation of a political forum I have ever seen.

Many thanks.

.

Seconded

agree

pretty much relaxed moderation , the way it should be

but

MP

you must also congratulate the participants

they pretty much all civilized

But, CS, YMix, job well done

I should know it .. this no Auerbach



.