/philosophy/ - Philosophy

>>8
Social justice is just a meaningless term used to advance political agendas. It's like the "PATRIOT Act." If you don't support it, you're not a real patriot. Likewise, if you don't support "social justice" (specifically, their brand of it) then logically, you must support social INjustice.

It's really that simple, OP.

>>8
The premise of Social Justice is that it creates a set of institutions that enable the population to engage themselves in a community. To achieve this, socialists believe that every person should have access to services such as education, health care, and others so as to produce an equality of opportunity.

If we take it for what it really is, Social Justice is inserted in the context of distributive justice, and characterized for aiming at full equality.

SJWs as we see contemporarily are a different thing, however. They are more concerned about issues that historically have been identified as identity politics. The main difference is that their modus operandi deals with the perceived shortcomes and disadvantages of an identity group, not the society as a whole. Their goal is to 'empower' said group, allowing it to flourish in a society that understands and accepts the need to end the opression towards said group.

>>8
I believe that it was Aristotle who said that justice is simply giving people what they deserve. In that way, the courts attempt to give justice by administering punishments for crimes.

The term "Social Justice" is a label given to the progressive movement to alleviate perceived oppression on minorities and achieving their notion of "equality." If you consider political correctness to be not saying or doing anything that would be offensive or detrimental to minorities, then Social Justice would be the militarized version of political correctness, as it seeks to influence government policy and social behavior.

In the minds of SJWs, I suppose that Social Justice really is giving minorities what they deserve in accordance to "oppression." But I think that what you said is right, it's not much more than the nonsensical, emotional demands of the mob, a mob manipulated by academics and left to become increasingly angry and irrational in echo chambers like tumblr and liberal universities. I have trouble thinking of anything else in our world that is as hypocritical and nonsensical as some of the views of SJWs.

Regarding what you were saying about laws, I think that justice exists outside of "the greater community" because it is giving people what they deserve. Just how laws aren't the arbiter of what's right and what's wrong, they are not also the arbiter of what is and is not justice, they are just an interpretation and exercise of justice made by lawmakers.

Social justice is not justice. It's a bastardization of justice which circumvents the core values of justice.

It's called social justice because justice is a popular word, and it makes the concept sound righteous to those who never truly understand what it is, or how it differs from justice. aka Buzz words.

>>14
On "giving people what they deserve".

Who's to say who deserves what? I'll give an example using SJW rhetoric. When they say "kill all men" that is exactly what they believe men deserve. Now, we might disagree, but who are we to say that men shouldn't be killed?

>>23
>Who's to say who deserves what?
That's the trouble with justice in general, it's completely up to anybody's interpretation.

>but who are we to say that men shouldn't be killed?

Well we're people who can have opinions on what is and isn't justice, aren't we? Just like them. If you subscribe to Utilitarianism, killing all men would violate it, as it would not create human happiness. It violates the non aggression principle, and the gold, silver, and platinum rules. If you're into natural rights, it violates the notion that everybody is entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," to name a few reasons why killing all men can be considered to be morally wrong.

>>26
Your answer satisfied me. A long-winded way of calling SJW's self-righteous cunts.

>>13
I agree with this post the most. I've also heard SJWs described as identity politics by other radical leftists.

But I have no idea what identity politics really is; can you point me to unbiased resources?

>>38
This seems alright to me: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-politics/

So what's the difference between a social justice warrior and simply believing in self-government? SJW seems to me like a buzzword people throw around to silence others, a lot like "fedora" or "hipster".

>>42
>SJW seems to me like a buzzword people throw around to silence others, a lot like "fedora" or "hipster".
It is. Check out the Urban Dictionary's definition:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=social%20justice%20warrior

>>42
SJW colloquially means that you are part of the growing online politically correct police.

>prone to be manipulated by appeals to emotion
>easily offended
>overly ideological
>pushing an agenda even when there's no need to do so

You're right to say that it's just another buzzword, however I see it as something more descriptive than 'hipster' or 'fedora'. Really, what the hell does it mean to be a hipster? I can't connect word to reality.

>>45
Traditionally, a hipster was a white person who frequented black jazz clubs. They'd adopt superficial aspects of the jazz culture (slang, dress, etc) whilst remaining separate from it (no musical capability, lack of heroin addiction, etc). The term these days seems to honor that notion, describing someone who hides behind a fake persona or cause in order to gain status.

As we've repeatedly seen, hipsters don't actually care about the cause or movement they pretend to identify with. They also tend to be late to the party. But it looks good on their Social Networking profile to "Like and Subscribe" to these pretend-altruistic (and ultimately self-defeating) causes.

"Feminism gets me laid and paid therefore I support it."

>>14

but what does it mean to "deserve" something? Who gets to decide who "deserves" what?

Is it dictated by natural laws? By consensus?

Be wary of political terms created by attaching an adjective to preexisting terms. There's almost always an agenda, and the new terms are often the exact opposite of the original. The reason this is done is given here.>>22

Another example is "structural" violence or "economic" violence, which is used to justify the initiation of actual violence.

SJWs are mostly folk that scream and whine and ignore.

"Thats offensive, you MUST be a part of [specific group of people I dont like] because you disagree with me and have opinions I dont like, and I wont listen to your rebuttal because I dont actually care, blocked." the SJWs have severe cases of hypocrisy.

>>67
It's deeper than that. Their postmodern thought process lets them get away with redefining context, thus changing the meaning of what you intended to say. It's intellectually dishonest if you ask me, but this is what passes for philosophy in modern academies.

Surely we are doomed.

>>52
Miller or Mailer, The White Nigger explicates this
>real jazz is fucking too based for words, however
>Mark Dresser yall, check it

>>74
nah, its just a bunch of idiots and fallacious/contradictory statements

>>8
One thing I feel like pointing out is how some of the SJWs fight so very hard for maintaining a status quo while trying to change things at the same time.

You see so many mini-movements in the larger movement in general that serves to end introspection and self improvement, instead seeking to celebrate life "as-is", even if said life is unoptimal or even an unhappy one.

>>8
>What, after all, is justice if it doesn't serve the want of the greater community?
Oh, I dunno.

Maybe protection of the very thing that makes community exist in the first place, no matter what some individualistic cunt thinks?

Whether or not natural laws pre-exist our choice to observe them doesn't change the fact that all laws we have are products of what we have chosen to make sacred.

Don't think of sacred as meaning "religiously venerated", but instead as those things which people think are worth being protected by the state.

If you want to know what people worship, then look at their laws.

>>77

>real jazz is fucking too based for words

true.

Social Justice has the same problems as modern feminism does. Much like academic feminism [in the context of epistemology] was nothing more than a critique on the [attempted] detachment from our physical bodies in the sciences, Social Justice means nothing more than just enforcement of societal rules, adhering to what is considered a moral standard and preferably cultivated to such lengths as to reaching trivial and everyday matters. In essence, moral awareness in social context.
The fact that the movement has recieved such a bad rep is due to two major reasons; The first is that many people don't believe that morality is as strict as Social Justice takes it to be, or if it were, that moral behaviour cannot be enforced. The second is that the notion has been hijacked by people with very shallow understandings of morality, as well as an even more narrow understanding of those in need of it. So on the one hand, it's not majority-driven, on the other hand, it's become a quarrelfield of social interest groups [which is contradictory to its universal or, at the very least, social premiss].

The first reason is pretty much the cause and downfall of the Social Justice Warrior movement. The internet is a very cynic place and tends to not limit it's behaviour when it's not restricted. In this sense, the internet needs a lot more supervision in order to keep up the "civility" of the physical world, but at the same time little more consequences arise from this than psychological issues or even trauma. SJW can be understood as a reaction to this. They demand a moral compass and a form of compassion that is intrinsic to us in such a way, that it effectively vanishes from our mannierisms. They view the web as a place to cultivate the harmful hateful speech that they tend to take extremely seriously, and link that finding with a deterioration of morality as a whole.

Reading some of the comments here, I feel like it's important to understand that there is a legitimate intention behind the notion of Social Justice, as well as SJW. Just because it has been blown out of proportion by people unfit to represent it, doesn't mean its ideas [even if you disagree with them] should be downplayed as a simple "buzzword."

>>30
Equality is about a person's rights, not their traits.

>>325
Says you.

I say equality is about having the same material capacity available to actualize your full potential.

>>337
What full potential?

>>346
Human potential.

A Newton could be born in buttfucking Africa today in some third world shit hole, and he'll never realize his potential genius because material life isn't conductive to it.

I basically advocate a meritocracy, a real equality of opportunity, and that requires material equality to start with.

>>42
As one anon already did hipster I'll try to do fedora.

Fedora gets its name from all of those "cringe" images you see of people who brag about being Atheist. The common theme for fedorafags is that they take up whatever group or cause that, as far as they can see in their lack of education on the subject, directly opposes something "wrong". Atheism is a popular choice because they take up a flag to directly oppose "believing in some invisible sugar daddy making everything all right". They do it to feel some form of superiority, picking easy targets and finding their "enemies", trying to snuggle up with the second group to look better in front of their new peers for opposing the first. In reality they just look like attention whores and dumbasses.

It's one of the most terrifying problems with democracy that Plato identified in Republic; the problem of the vocal few dominating the placid many.

>>348
>I basically advocate a meritocracy, a real equality of opportunity, and that requires material equality to start with.
>Has not read Starship Troopers.

Top lel.

>>703
>a fictional book is equivalent to reality

Next you'll recommend me a utopian socialist book as proof that socialism works.

>>704

>Next you'll recommend me a utopian socialist book as proof that socialism works.

The book wasn't written based on material/resource distribution. It merely shows that a Meritocracy without such things is possible.

>thinking politics is about have and have not.

>>707
>10 years in military service to prove that the individual holds the collectives best interest above his or her own is so hard to conceptualize.

Indeed. Check out this moron.

>>708
>ideal abstractions are real

You can conceptualize all you want, it's nothing real nor true. The truth of concepts is their extent of realization. Your hypothetical garbage won't happen, nothing further must be said.

Im sort of a law nerd. My understanding is that justice means impartial and equal application of the law. Justice is dependent on their being a legal system, its not merely the product of social conditions.

Justice is different goodness. Good but unjust, and bad but just circumstances are imaginable. Like a decent but weak-willed person who getting wrapped up in an elaborate drug scheme, and foolishly committed a crime.

The really interesting question to me is at what level of law does justice occur. What I mean is, people use the word 'law' in really different ways. Lay people often refer to statutes, but many jurists consider statutes to be merely 'sources of law'. Natural rights expressed in the constitution, as well as the coercive force of law enforcement, are both sometimes referred to as law, though they represent opposite poles in the spectrum of real to abstract.

The most compelling understanding of law (in my opinion), is what is produced in court rooms by judges. Only after statutes are argued over and ruled on is there law. Coming back to justice, there are really only two possible sources of justice:

0. The impartial enforcement of laws, by law enforcement. And;
1. The impartial interpretation of statutes by Judges and Prosecutors.

The question gets really hairy, when we realize that sometimes impartial application of the law can greatly disparage a particular demographic. For example, in the US speech can be prohibited, so long as the prohibition is not on the basis of content. Using a bull horn in a neighborhood at 3 am is speech, but making it illegal is not done on the basis of the content of the speech. What if we criminalize protesting in front of abortion clinics on the basis of public safety? Only pro-life folks would be hurt by such a law, though the law could be made impartially.