PRIVATE POLL: Social Justice

[VBR]

What does the term social justice mean to you?

Throughout the last decade, certain terms became increasingly familiar within the public domain such as; social justice warriors (SJWs), callout culture, cancel culture, woke, trigger warnings, safe spaces, cultural appropriation, white privilege, antiracism, identity politics, lived experience, microaggressions, problematics, unconscious bias, etc. And, they're all related in one way or another to modern concepts of social justice.

Here are two definitions of what Social Justice means to academics in the field;

"To clarify our definition, let’s start with the concept “social justice.” While some scholars and activists prefer to use the term social justice in order to reclaim its true commitments, in this book we use the term critical social justice. We do so in order to distinguish our standpoint on social justice from mainstream standpoints. A critical approach to social justice refers to specific theoretical perspectives that recognize that society is stratified (i.e., divided and unequal) in significant and far-reaching ways along social group lines that include race, class, gender, sexuality, and ability. Critical social justice recognizes inequality as deeply embedded in the fabric of society (i.e., as structural), and actively seeks to change this." Sensoy, Ozlem, and Robin DiAngelo.

"“Social Justice” is the ultimate “Trojan Horse” term, where it seems to mean one (good) thing as most people understand it—social justice, a more fair and equal society—but actually means something else....“Social Justice,” here intentionally capitalized, means something more specific...it means Critical Social Justice. This is, in fact, an ideology that very aggressively pursues the social, cultural, institutional, and political installation and enforcement of a very specific and radical understanding of social justice as derived from various critical theories...and their specific analyses of socially constructed dynamics of systemic power...As such, they do not necessarily seek to achieve “social justice” in the broad sense or the sense that many people would assume of the term. Instead, they seek to empower and enforce their particular worldview that revolves around one narrow and authoritarian interpretation of the concept." - Dr. James Lindsay.

Both quotes & more can be found here: https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-social-justice/

 

[MatskiMonk]

This seems ill conceived to me. You have two definitions, and ask what it means to us, but then a poll as to whether you like social justice (with capital letters)... what's the point of the poll, it seems to only cover the second definition?

 

[dlshearon]

1st answer is good minus the word hate. Their ideas are destructive but for me hate is a very harsh word that is wrongly/overly used today.

 

[TheCracker]

This is a poll not about the concept of social justice, but one on what people think of social justice activists as portrayed by the media. In effect lumping the average left-leaning political studies student with anarchist rioters.

 

[Liquid]

Why is there a trademark symbol in the first answer?

 

[MatskiMonk]

Why is there a trademark symbol in the first answer?

Hmm... Ironic that he's used the trademark symbol there, but not on the term Social Justice Warrior, which is trademarked within a certain scope.

 

[VBR]

Why is there a trademark symbol in the first answer?

Because sarcasm. Similar to when it's used on the word Soon™ in relation to PD.

 

[Danoff]

What does the term social justice mean to you?

It's a broad term used to encompass a wide range of behavior of individuals seeking to avoid unfair treatment of people for characteristics that are seen as beyond their control. Specifically, it applies to people acting within the "social" sphere rather than through the political or governmental sphere. It is a grass-roots effort to help people understand how they intentionally or unintentionally isolate and marginalize people and to help enact a cultural shift toward a more equitable society.

When social justice concepts become laws, such as by banning certain "hate speech", it ceases being "social justice" and becomes government oppression.

 

[DesertPenguin]

I can already tell this thread is gonna be fun. I look forward to reading it after work

 

[UKMikey]

Hmm... Ironic that he's used the trademark symbol there, but not on the term Social Justice Warrior, which is trademarked within a certain scope.

Perhaps there's a new line of toys coming out.

When social justice concepts become laws, such as by banning certain "hate speech", it ceases being "social justice" and becomes government oppression.

Of racists. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

 

[huskeR32]

cancel culture

I suspect this will be met with same silence it received when I tried to get two other people to engage, but here goes; "Cancel culture" is simply the intersection of two things that the people who typically decry it claim to hold dear.

If a bunch of consumers collectively speak up or boycott a product or the creative output of an entertainer, aren't they simply exercising their First Amendment right to freedom of expression? And if companies choose to respond to such actions by making changes to their products or who they associate with, isn't that simply the free market responding to customer demand?

 

[VBR]

This seems ill conceived to me. You have two definitions, and ask what it means to us, but then a poll as to whether you like social justice (with capital letters)... what's the point of the poll, it seems to only cover the second definition?

Firstly I asked what social justice, lower case, means to individuals. Secondly, I spoke of, "...modern concepts of social justice.", lower case again & plural indicating that there is more than just one concept (using the word "modern" also indicates that there are older meanings of the phrase that predate the Critical Theory inspired definition). Yes, the poll questions are in regard to the two academic definitions, where the first is a definition & the second is actually more a critique of it. So, seeing as there are many different definitions of social justice, not being specific would make the poll pointless IMO.

This is a poll not about the concept of social justice, but one on what people think of social justice activists as portrayed by the media. In effect lumping the average left-leaning political studies student with anarchist rioters.

You're right, the poll is not about the concept of social justice because there isn't one, there are many; it's about Social Justice (capitalized), i.e. Critical Social Justice. This thread & the poll in it have little to nothing to do with the media portrayals of SJWs, which obviously vary from company to company depending on their left/right bias. However, I portrayed them in 4 different ways ranging from loved activists with constructive ideologies through to hated bullies with destructive ideologies. Neither does it have anything to do with attempting to lump students & anarchist rioters together as you have falsely assumed; the way I phrased my words in the OP were far more nuanced than for that to be inferred as being the case. If you want to know what my intentions are, then by all means please ask, but don't assume.

 

[UKMikey]

I suspect this will be met with same silence it received when I tried to get two other people to engage, but here goes; "Cancel culture" is simply the intersection of two things that the people who typically decry it claim to hold dear.

If a bunch of consumers collectively speak up or boycott a product or the creative output of an entertainer, aren't they simply exercising their First Amendment right to freedom of expression? And if companies choose to respond to such actions by making changes to their products or who they associate with, isn't that simply the free market responding to customer demand?

I'm sceptical of attempts to dump cancel culture solely in the laps of leftists given that the National Viewers' & Listeners' Association, the Moral Majority and Save Our Children have all been things.

 

[Biggles]

Firstly I asked what social justice, lower case, means to individuals. Secondly, I spoke of, "...modern concepts of social justice.", lower case again & plural indicating that there is more than just one concept (using the word "modern" also indicates that there are older meanings of the phrase that predate the Critical Theory inspired definition). Yes, the poll questions are in regard to the two academic definitions, where the first is a definition & the second is actually more a critique of it. So, seeing as there are many different definitions of social justice, not being specific would make the poll pointless IMO.




You're right, the poll is not about the concept of social justice because there isn't one, there are many; it's about Social Justice (capitalized), i.e. Critical Social Justice. This thread & the poll in it have little to nothing to do with the media portrayals of SJWs, which obviously vary from company to company depending on their left/right bias. However, I portrayed them in 4 different ways ranging from loved activists with constructive ideologies through to hated bullies with destructive ideologies. Neither does it have anything to do with attempting to lump students & anarchist rioters together as you have falsely assumed; the way I phrased my words in the OP were far more nuanced than for that to be inferred as being the case. If you want to know what my intentions are, then by all means please ask, but don't assume.

What you've done is create a "poll" that is inherently biased in its wording. Complete waste of time.

 

[GranTurNismo]

I've noticed that @VBR has been posting about/alluding to "Social Justice Warriors" quite a lot throughout this subforum. From this I can't help but wonder if you've been watching too many "SJW cringe compilations" on YouTube, in which some heavy, blue-haired "feminist" is yelling at some guy on the street for "mansplaining", or gets "triggered" and screams and shouts because someone accidentally got their neo-pronouns wrong, all in the name of advancing social justice, which could lead you to believe that this behavior is supposedly commonplace and representative of modern leftism, and/or all things under the guise of the term "social justice".

 

[zzz_pt]

A just society is something worth perusing but the current association with the expression "social justice" is so muddy, it will probably (if it's not already doing) do more wrong than good.

 

[TenEightyOne]

There's a difference between social justice and Social Justice. I'm not sure the premise of the poll is helpful.

 

[VBR]

An interesting interview...

 

[TenEightyOne]

@VBR There are no options to choose social justice, only Social Justice, which would form a tacit acknowledgement of the 'cult', as you've chosen to present it in your most recent post. It's easy enough to be in favour of social justice when the opposite is not being in favour of social justice, but then that's evidently nothing to do with this thread.

 

[Dotini]

In Seattle, I think the overzealous quest by city officials for social justice is having the unintended consequence of ruining the economy, safety and happiness of the average tax paying citizen and the city itself.

 

[Outspacer]

 

[Keef]

In Seattle, I think the overzealous quest by city officials for social justice is having the unintended consequence of ruining the economy, safety and happiness of the average tax paying citizen and the city itself.

As a resident of the Midwest, I'd suggest that whatever is causing housing prices in Seattle to be unattainable is ruining the economy, safety, and happiness of the average tax paying citizen and the city itself.

 

[GranTurNismo]

As a resident of the Midwest, I'd suggest that whatever is causing housing prices in Seattle to be unattainable is ruining the economy, safety, and happiness of the average tax paying citizen and the city itself.

I'm no economist but the trend I've noticed in west coast cities like Seattle, SanFran, LA, Portland, etc, is that the zoning laws are very strict which allows for very little new apartments/housing for the lower and middle class to be built. Obviously, the demand to live in these cities far exceeds the housing supply, which naturally drives the prices up. Places like San Fran and Seattle seem to have only two demographics at this point; the homeless and underclass (who live in the small amount of rent-controlled public housing), and the wealthy. Working and middle class types seem to endure quite long commutes to work in these cities. Also, there is a geographical influence at play; these cities are surrounded by water on one side and much of the terrain is too rugged for development. But yes, it does seem unsustainable.

Though in Dayton, OH it seems you can find a 3 bedroom 1500sqft home in good condition with a decent yard for under $100k, even as low as $60-70k in some cases. Then again, you're dealing with a rust belt economy, high crime, blight, terrible schools, and food deserts. Places like Seattle and SanFran seem to have the most cutthroat job markets in the country, so COL would be higher than average regardless of the housing supply.

 

[McLaren]

I looked up VBR's video on Reddit & the comments I found make for a great realization.

Imo, there’s not only the sjw cult. There’s also an anti sjw cult. And this channel I suspect belongs to such cultists.

anti sjws have become the new sjws

For someone who posts sources about how obsessed Liberals/Leftists are with being SJWs & wokeness, VBR seems ironically just as obsessed with being an anti-SJW/woke individual. Why else have every single one of his posts in this section pertained to denouncing SJWs through bad-faith sources.

And for anyone wanting a background on his source:

Yes I've been following them for a while (in a curiosity sense, rather than as a supporter!)

It started off as 2 woefully unfunny failed stand-up comedians that decided to do a youtube based interview show together. At first they got on people from all over the spectrum, but once they found out what their boomer audience wanted, they swiftly went down the Dave Rubin grift route and have now gone full PragerU alt-right propaganda. It's the usual stuff - claiming they are interested only in facts and that the left have rejected science, whilst having completely fact-free discussions with whatever pseudointellectual they are interviewing at the time.

They now seem to only interview people who are either anti-left, anti-SJW/woke, people who hate trans people and they especially get on a "token du jour" to talk about their thing, such as a black person to tell us how there isn't any racism anymore. I've asked them on their live streams why they don't challenge any of their [problematic, e.g. racist] guests on their views, and they answered that if they platform someone then it is a person they are endorsing.

Although they style themselves as the classic meme of "enlightened centrist" they are clearly alt right or at least fascist-leaning/enabling. To their credit at one point they interviewed someone who had left the far-right and Triggernometry subsequently denounced Nazism and the far-right, then they were really surprised that their audience is full of Nazis who weren't too happy with this, so they lost a lot of followers. I see their reactionary channel getting much bigger, and they will for sure use the current cultural-revolution as an excuse to lean further to the right.

I don't leave these long posts often, but these grifters really make me angry when i see the masses of people in my country that have been taken in by dangerous alt-right communities. Ultimately they're being brainwashed into voting against their own interests.

Just do what normal anti-SJ warriors do & post a Ben Shapiro video about it. At least he's not a pretend Liberal-turned-Awakened grifter.

 

[GranTurNismo]

There's a phenomenon that was known as the Anti-SJW-Nazi pipeline. Sounds a bit strange, but I'll explain. After the whole Gamergate debacle about five or so years ago, there was a massive rise in the amount "anti-SJW content", whether it be youtube channels, social media posts, on forums like 4Chan, on Twitch, etc. This type of content would mostly spectacle the craziest of SJWS, mostly from Tumblr posts (mind you, these were largely from accounts with very little following), that would say things such as "all men are sexist by default" or "white people should personally apologize to POC because of the actions of their ancestors" or "men holding the door open for women perpetuates rape culture" and other insane beliefs of the sort. Although a very, very small amount of people actually hold these beliefs, so-called anti-SJWs would extrapolate this behavior to all feminists and all people which identify with the Left. As such, its viewers would end up feeling that a war is being waged against masculinity, whiteness, and heterosexuality. This is where the Nazi aspect comes into play. At this time, the Youtube algorithm was notorious for recommending alt-right or neo-nazi content (almost 100% of which is now deleted from the site) to those who frequently watched anti-SJW videos. These videos would subtly imply that jewish globalists are responsible for the subversion of masculinity, whiteness, and heterosexuality, as well as that straight white men should be proud of their identity in a tribalistic sort of way, that "diversity" is code for "white genocide", that nonwhite immigration should be banned, that LGBTQ+ is icky and gross, and a slew of other bigoted and ultra-reactionary beliefs. This is how the alt-right grew in 2016-2017, which was a major factor towards the Charlottesville "unite the right" rally.

 

[UKMikey]

There's a phenomenon that was known as the Anti-SJW-Nazi pipeline. Sounds a bit strange, but I'll explain. After the whole Gamergate debacle about five or so years ago, there was a massive rise in the amount "anti-SJW content", whether it be youtube channels, social media posts, on forums like 4Chan, on Twitch, etc. This type of content would mostly spectacle the craziest of SJWS, mostly from Tumblr posts (mind you, these were largely from accounts with very little following), that would say things such as "all men are sexist by default" or "white people should personally apologize to POC because of the actions of their ancestors" or "men holding the door open for women perpetuates rape culture" and other insane beliefs of the sort. Although a very, very small amount of people actually hold these beliefs, so-called anti-SJWs would extrapolate this behavior to all feminists and all people which identify with the Left. As such, its viewers would end up feeling that a war is being waged against masculinity, whiteness, and heterosexuality. This is where the Nazi aspect comes into play. At this time, the Youtube algorithm was notorious for recommending alt-right or neo-nazi content (almost 100% of which is now deleted from the site) to those who frequently watched anti-SJW videos. These videos would subtly imply that jewish globalists are responsible for the subversion of masculinity, whiteness, and heterosexuality, as well as that straight white men should be proud of their identity in a tribalistic sort of way, that "diversity" is code for "white genocide", that nonwhite immigration should be banned, that LGBTQ+ is icky and gross, and a slew of other bigoted and ultra-reactionary beliefs. This is how the alt-right grew in 2016-2017, which was a major factor towards the Charlottesville "unite the right" rally.

You mentioned something like this in September. I posted a video in August which dealt with the phenomenon of alt-righties "nutpicking" the looniest of lefties in order to discredit anyone who disagreed with their own views. Don't worry, I provided a summary, lol.

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/thre...age-meme-thread.343002/page-129#post-13200154

 

[Keef]

There's a phenomenon that was known as the Anti-SJW-Nazi pipeline. Sounds a bit strange, but I'll explain. After the whole Gamergate debacle about five or so years ago, there was a massive rise in the amount "anti-SJW content", whether it be youtube channels, social media posts, on forums like 4Chan, on Twitch, etc. This type of content would mostly spectacle the craziest of SJWS, mostly from Tumblr posts (mind you, these were largely from accounts with very little following), that would say things such as "all men are sexist by default" or "white people should personally apologize to POC because of the actions of their ancestors" or "men holding the door open for women perpetuates rape culture" and other insane beliefs of the sort. Although a very, very small amount of people actually hold these beliefs, so-called anti-SJWs would extrapolate this behavior to all feminists and all people which identify with the Left. As such, its viewers would end up feeling that a war is being waged against masculinity, whiteness, and heterosexuality. This is where the Nazi aspect comes into play. At this time, the Youtube algorithm was notorious for recommending alt-right or neo-nazi content (almost 100% of which is now deleted from the site) to those who frequently watched anti-SJW videos. These videos would subtly imply that jewish globalists are responsible for the subversion of masculinity, whiteness, and heterosexuality, as well as that straight white men should be proud of their identity in a tribalistic sort of way, that "diversity" is code for "white genocide", that nonwhite immigration should be banned, that LGBTQ+ is icky and gross, and a slew of other bigoted and ultra-reactionary beliefs. This is how the alt-right grew in 2016-2017, which was a major factor towards the Charlottesville "unite the right" rally.

This is probably a small part of the big picture but does make a lot of sense to me. I've argued something along these lines with a friend who no longer speaks to me after political clashes we had throughout last summer and election season. I honestly don't even know what he got himself roped into but it started with Jordan Peterson several years ago (I thought we were on the same sort of libertarian level but that went out the window) and spiraled out of control from there. It because virtually impossible to argue with him because the things he was saying made absolutely no sense, and his tactics became much more confrontational, resorting to name calling, saying "you're wrong!" without any justification, and general argumentative bullying. Oddly enough, these are all behaviors pretty common along this "pipeline" you speak of. Doesn't help that he's Cuban-American, many of whom have an irrational fear of an impending commie uprising in the US despite having built successful lives after coming here at a young age. You don't even need to be white to subscribe to this sort of stuff. Ultimately, the idea that was enraged about a very tiny sect of SJW extremists lead him to what appeared to me to be some form of light-right-extremism.

 

[UKMikey]

This is probably a small part of the big picture but does make a lot of sense to me. I've argued something along these lines with a friend who no longer speaks to me after political clashes we had throughout last summer and election season. I honestly don't even know what he got himself roped into but it started with Jordan Peterson several years ago (I thought we were on the same sort of libertarian level but that went out the window) and spiraled out of control from there. It because virtually impossible to argue with him because the things he was saying made absolutely no sense, and his tactics became much more confrontational, resorting to name calling, saying "you're wrong!" without any justification, and general argumentative bullying. Oddly enough, these are all behaviors pretty common along this "pipeline" you speak of. Doesn't help that he's Cuban-American, many of whom have an irrational fear of an impending commie uprising in the US despite having built successful lives after coming here at a young age. You don't even need to be white to subscribe to this sort of stuff. Ultimately, the idea that was enraged about a very tiny sect of SJW extremists lead him to what appeared to me to be some form of light-right-extremism.

The same thing happened to a long-standing friend of mine who started by dropping "maybe Trump isn't all that bad" into the conversation then one day became incensed over pronouns and unisex toilets and obsessed with predicting the end of civilisation in America.

He subsequently started urging me to watch Peterson and Ben Shapiro videos when I suggested that the United States had weathered worse storms than this during the days of segregation at which point he accused me of throwing slavery in his face. A twenty-plus-years friendship flushed down the (unisex) toilet.

 

[GranTurNismo]

And it's telling that so-called "anti-SJWs" are hyper-fixated on menial culture-war issues like trans people in women's bathrooms, trans people competing in women's sports (ironic how the right-wing went from denigrating and delegitimizing women's sports to suddenly pretending care so much about them), cancel culture, corporate racial sensitivity presentations, ads that "bash men" like that Gillette ad we all know of, safe spaces at college campuses, gender studies degrees (sociology degrees are already only about 1.2% of all college degrees, and gender studies is a rather small subset of sociology), neo-pronouns like "they/them", that one congressman who said "Amen and Awomen", etc. I could go on all day. Yet they never seem to have an opinion when it comes to things which actually meaningfully impact the lives of everyday people, like economic or health policy.

 

[Keef]

Yet they never seem to have an opinion when it comes to things which actually meaningfully impact the lives of everyday people, like economic or health policy.

There are tons of layers to it but one recurring theme seems to be a desire for control. Some of these people tend to have aggressive personalities, both like they're always trying to prove something and that their way is the correct way. We all have our moments but this isn't simply getting mad and railing that old people shouldn't be driving or that bicyclists are lawless or whatever minor annoyance pisses us off, no, it seems to be a core tenet of their character. It's how they live life and make decisions. Of course it's completely hypocritical of them, being so aggressively "anti-authority", yet latching onto authoritarian leadership, while simultaneously eschewing actual authority like police, while also attempting to establish authority as if they are the police. SJWs are the least of my worries...at least they don't have a closet full of guns!