Jeff Sessions is not a social justice warrior ... but what is social justice?

[BotanyBoy]

It really doesn’t matter if the constitution states that all men are created equal. It’s in the Declaration of Independence and is a huge part of our American propaganda.

LOL

You seriously tried to equate the two documents?

LMFAO.....Jesus Christ maybe the (R)'s are right and we should shit can public education.

 

[Hard_Rom]

In the later 19th and early 20th century, social justice became an important theme in American political and legal philosophy, particularly in the work of John Dewey, Roscoe Pound and Louis Brandeis. One of the prime concerns was the Lochner era decisions of the US Supreme Court to strike down legislation passed by state governments and the Federal government for social and economic improvement, such as the eight-hour day or the right to join a trade union.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice

 

[Hard_Rom]

Any policy aimed at reducing the current incidence of murder amongst gangmembers in Chicago would involve a racial component. It would, of necessity, involve even more incarceration for lengthier stays for young, black men then is currently the case where they are already disproportionately locked up.

Without a doubt, such aggressive, community-specific policing would firectly impact murder rates, and plenty of the usual suspects caught up in such a dragnet would, on paper, be getting jail time for what seem to be minor offenses. Such a police state would rely on informants to lock up seriously bad actors for whatever you can "get them on."

The accusation will be systemic racism. As was the effective stop and frisk program. Both would be unconstitutional if actually codified.

The impetus behind such measures did not pop up because cops were bored and thought it wpuld be entertaining to harrass some blacks.

Its hardly social justice to lock up the poor and disenfranchised. Social justice entails getting rid of the conditions which drive the poor to crime.

Crime is a socio-economic issue not racial. Unless you have white guys who go around blaming crime on race.

 

[Conager]

Its hardly social justice to lock up the poor and disenfranchised. Social justice entails getting rid of the conditions which drive the poor to crime.

Crime is a socio-economic issue not racial. Unless you have white guys who go around blaming crime on race.

Those living in crime-ridden neighborhood should just suck it up and enjoy the ambiance? Just wait for some black guy, "driven by" socio-economic conditions to shoot their brother, uncle, father, or son?

Sounds like a plan!

I love your ideas about getting rid of the socio-economic conditions that "cause" crime. Couldn't be that property values and hence personal wealth will not rise in crime ridden areas, the opposite must be true. Lets spread some wealth around, it will be well husbanded and invested, prosperity will reign!

Let's call this grand Rom-plan, "The War on Poverty." I can't wait to live in that future Great Society!

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Wow, I made an erroneous comment. I’m so embarrassed. You caught my error which makes you like really, really smart.

It really doesn’t matter if the constitution states that all men are created equal. It’s in the Declaration of Independence and is a huge part of our American propaganda.

Btw, at your advanced age, you shouldn’t need to resort to name calling

You SHOULD be embarrassed. And, no, my knowing the correct source of such a renowned expression of American "propaganda," as you so disparagingly put it, doesn't make me smart. It simply makes me functionally literate. Which, by contrast, sort of implies you're the other kind.

And now that we've cleared all that up, you still haven't made any rational defense of the validity of "social justice" as compared with "regular, judicially adjudicated LEGAL justice" which, just by the way, is quite SOCIAL in its impact and really constitutes all the "justice" our society needs, which was my ENTIRE point to begin with.

Want more proof? How many times does a desired campaign for INCREASED SOCIAL JUSTICE result in new legislation, which is then CODIFIED into new criminal or administrative LAW? That's clearly the literal objective of most "social justice warriors."

In practice, however, "social justice" is often nothing more than a doublespeak euphemism to gild mere liberal political correctness with the substantive credibility associated with prior movements against discrimination on the basis of race or sex or to expand non-discriminatory behavior on the part of the government to outright favoritism of the poor over the affluent.

It is simply its own form of American "counter-propaganda," if you will. A word you seem to like to throw around with the same ease others invoke the phrase of "social justice."

 

[Hard_Rom]

Those living in crime-ridden neighborhood should just suck it up and enjoy the ambiance? Just wait for some black guy, "driven by" socio-economic conditions to shoot their brother, uncle, father, or son?

Sounds like a plan!

I love your ideas about getting rid of the socio-economic conditions that "cause" crime. Couldn't be that property values and hence personal wealth will not rise in crime ridden areas, the opposite must be true. Lets spread some wealth around, it will be well husbanded and invested, prosperity will reign!

Let's call this grand Rom-plan, "The War on Poverty." I can't wait to live in that future Great Society!

Its some 'poor' guy not black guy. If blacks are the poor that reflects negatively on whites not blacks. Blacks could not even vote in some of our life times. And even suffered systematic racism from segregation. Hardly a Just Society working towards social justice.

It took a long time to create the conditions that created a poor class heavily tilted on racial lines. It can't be cured overnight.

Law and order does have it's place. But pointing fingers at blacks and taking a short term view will not help the situation.

 

[Conager]

Its some 'poor' guy not black guy. If blacks are the poor that reflects negatively on whites not blacks. Blacks could not even vote in some of our life times. And even suffered systematic racism from segregation. Hardly a Just Society working towards social justice.

It took a long time to create the conditions that created a poor class heavily tilted on racial lines. It can't be cured overnight.

Law and order does have it's place. But pointing fingers at blacks and taking a short term view will not help the situation.

Speaking of murders in Chicago is not "pointing fingers at blacks." Murders in Chicago are overwhelmingly black on black crime. Something you wouldn't understand because you think first nations individuals and asian immigrants makes Canada "diverse."

The father, brother, uncle and son referenced is black. Because we have actual, violent neighborhoods with black gangs killing each other over turf.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Murders are committed more by blacks because blacks make up a larger share of the poor population than their numbers would suggest. What is so hard to grasp about that?

All you have to do is substitute poor for black when you talk about murdering. I can't say black is just a coincidence. Systematic racism led to this. The solution relies on not making this a racial issue. That is what created the situation and conditions.

Rich and middle class blacks don't commit large scale black on black murders. But poor blacks might.

Rich black, no
Middle class black, no
Poor black, yes

What is the variable there? Race or socio-economic class?

Upper and middle class blacks become lawyers, senators and presidents. Probably even a few poor manage to breakout of poverty and achieve.

 

[Conager]

Murders are committed more by blacks because blacks make up a larger share of the poor population than their numbers would suggest. What is so hard to grasp about that?

All you have to do is substitute poor for black when you talk about murdering. I can't say black is just a coincidence. Systematic racism led to this. The solution relies on not making this a racial issue. That is what created the situation and conditions.

Rich and middle class blacks don't commit large scale black on black murders. But poor blacks might.

Rich black, no
Middle class black, no
Poor black, yes

What is the variable there? Race or socio-economic class?

Upper and middle class blacks become lawyers, senators and presidents. Probably even a few poor manage to breakout of poverty and achieve.

The majority of the poor are not black. Poor white people do not kill each other in the proportions the poor black people do eac other.

That aside, you sure can't follow a conversational thread. The subject at hand IS SPECIFICALLY what has been done in the past and what should be done in the future in SPECIFICALLY BLACK neighborhoods regarding the high incidence of violent crime in those neighborhoods.

Not what should be done in relatively low-crime, socio-economically disadvantaged native american reservations.

Not what should be done in Appalachia. No one complains about systemic racism when you're having to police a bunch of poor white people.

 

[Hard_Rom]

The original topic was what is social justice. Perhaps we have here an example of what happens when blacks do not receive social justice. A poor white person may get social justice. But a black one will not. They know that.

 

[Conager]

The original topic was what is social justice. Perhaps we have here an example of what happens when blacks do not receive social justice. A poor white person may get social justice. But a black one will not. They know that.

That's your white privilege talking.

I have serious concerns about your SJW card. Despite all the virtue signaling and threatening of brick throwing and pugilistic endeavors you report with Canadian racists (guffaw!), you don't seem very well-versed with the basics.

No, poor whites do not "receive social jusice," nor do they need it, and if they did they surely would not deserve it. They are WHITE.

All whites are born with a knapsack of privelege that they are often unaware that they enjoy. Poor Blacks, as you so sagely point out, cannot help but engage in violent misbehavior because of the socio-economic lot in life that is handed to them by society, completely detached from any personal choices that they make, because of institutional racism.

Whites born in the exact same socio-economic circumstances have no such burden imposed upon them, so they can take flight with ease, if they will simply unpack and acknowlege their knapsack of priveleges which are both generously all-encompassing and curiously non-specific.

 

[BotanyBoy]

A poor white person may get social justice. But a black one will not. They know that.

What social justice do poor black people need?

What social justice do poor white people get that poor POC/women aren't allowed to get?

Can anyone answer that? Rom sure as fuck can't.....

http://i.imgur.com/mWvMPa6.gif

 

[BotanyBoy]

All whites are born with a knapsack of privelege

Whites born in the exact same socio-economic circumstances have no such burden imposed upon them, so they can take flight with ease, if they will simply unpack and acknowlege their knapsack of priveleges which are both generously all-encompassing and curiously non-specific.

Isn't that fucking amazing??? 100% of the time......LOL

acknowledge/ privilege(s)

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

"Social justice" are those government policies and programs one advocates when regular justice doesn't get them all they think they deserve.

Regular justice only applies to people who have been aggrieved, disadvantaged or victimized under the law. Social justice is not so constrained and, to the extent one can manipulate it, seeks to redress societal 'unfairness' or 'inequality' wherever it can be arguably claimed. Which is to say, almost anywhere and everywhere.

Regular justice is minimalist. Social justice is, oh, so expansive.

It took 17 posts for someone to offer a definition.

It's pretty much a subjective and moving target that means anything the user(s) want it to mean on any given day.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Seems to be the same for words like Socialism, Capitalism and NAZI...



:shrug:

 

[water505]

Social justice is another fake catch-phrase invented by the left. They're highly adept wordsmiths who create slogans for nonexistent problems so they can use them against their evil opponents.

My personal favorite is "environmental racism."

 

[RobDownSouth]

The majority of the poor are not black. Poor white people do not kill each other in the proportions the poor black people do eac other.

Pure speculation. You have nothing to back that up.

Not what should be done in Appalachia. No one complains about systemic racism when you're having to police a bunch of poor white people.

Google "black-white incarceration gap" and feel stupider than usual.

 

[IrezumiKiss]

"blacks blacks blacks BLACKS BLACKS BLACKS blah blah blah"

oh please please please mighty noble all worldly encompassing white people

TELL US WHAT WE ARE!!! TELL US WHAT WE DO!!! FOR WHAT WE ARE AND WHAT WE DO, WE NOT KNOW!!!

YOU KNOW US NEGRO FOLK, ULTIMATELY, SURELY YOU DO!!!

for if not, then

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll36/Bigsteve87/Gifs/CutThroat.gif

 

[Hard_Rom]

"Social justice" are those government policies and programs one advocates when regular justice doesn't get them all they think they deserve.

"Social justice" are those government policies and programs one advocates when regular justice doesn't get them all they truly deserve.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I'm not sure what "social justice" means.

This:

Social justice is the fair and just relation between the individual and society. This is measured by the explicit and tacit terms for the distribution of wealth, opportunities for personal activity and social privileges. In Western as well as in older Asian cultures, the concept of social justice has often referred to the process of ensuring that individuals fulfill their societal roles and receive what was their due from society.[1][2][3] In the current global grassroots movements for social justice, the emphasis has been on the breaking of barriers for social mobility, the creation of safety nets and economic justice.[4][5][6][7][8]

Social justice assigns rights and duties in the institutions of society, which enables people to receive the basic benefits and burdens of cooperation. The relevant institutions often include taxation, social insurance, public health, public school, public services, labour law and regulation of markets, to ensure fair distribution of wealth, equal opportunity and equality of outcome.[9]

Interpretations that relate justice to a reciprocal relationship to society are mediated by differences in cultural traditions, some of which emphasize the individual responsibility toward society and others the equilibrium between access to power and its responsible use.[10] Hence, social justice is invoked today while reinterpreting historical figures such as Bartolomé de las Casas, in philosophical debates about differences among human beings, in efforts for gender, racial and social equality, for advocating justice for migrants, prisoners, the environment, and the physically and mentally disabled.[11][12][13][14][15][16][17]

While the concept of social justice can be traced through the theology of Augustine of Hippo and the philosophy of Thomas Paine, the term "social justice" became used explicitly from the 1840s. A Jesuit priest named Luigi Taparelli is typically credited with coining the term, and it spread during the revolutions of 1848 with the work of Antonio Rosmini-Serbati.[2][18][19] In the late industrial revolution, progressive American legal scholars began to use the term more, particularly Louis Brandeis and Roscoe Pound. From the early 20th century it was also embedded in international law and institutions; the preamble to establish the International Labour Organization recalled that "universal and lasting peace can be established only if it is based upon social justice." In the later 20th century, social justice was made central to the philosophy of the social contract, primarily by John Rawls in A Theory of Justice (1971). In 1993, the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action treats social justice as a purpose of the human rights education.[20][21]

And, this:

"Circumstances such as where a person is born, where they live or their gender and ethnicity should never determine their income or their opportunities for quality education, basic healthcare, decent work, adequate shelter, access to drinking water, political participation or living free from threatened, or actual, physical violence."
—Secretary-General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon, Message for the 2014 World Day of Social Justice

Social justice is a philosophical,[1] political,[2][3] social,[4][5] and legal[6] movement in support of the rights of those who are marginalised, chiefly by poverty, but also (and increasingly) those who lack social privilege at any intersection.[7]

Historically, it is a concept that has existed since ancient times. One of the earliest influential western writings on social justice was penned by Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics volume V. This work discussed distributive justice (how to distribute scarce resources fairly).[8] The term "social justice" itself was coined in the 1840s by a Jesuit priest named Luigi Taparelli.[9] Partly due to its historical roots, the meaning of the phrase has been contentious.[1] However in modern times, the consensus is that social justice has a secular[1][2][3][5][6] definition:

Social justice involves creating a society based on principles of equality and solidarity, that understands and values human rights, and that recognises the dignity of every human being. At its 2007 World Summit for Social Development, the United Nations proclaimed 20 February as World Day of Social Justice. Governments pledged to promote the equitable distribution of income and greater access to resources through equity and equality and opportunity for all. The day aims to consolidate the efforts of the international community to eradicate poverty, and promote full employment and decent work, gender equity, rights of indigenous peoples and migrants, and access to social well-being and justice for all.[10][10][11]

And can someone tell me what "alt-right" and "neocon" mean and how they are different?

Neoconservatism emerged in the 1960s and '70s as the ideology of, mainly, some disaffected American leftist intellectuals, many of them Jews such as Irving Kristol, who repudiated their leftist ideology but retained their radicalism. It demands an aggressive American foreign and military policy -- initially to contain the Soviets, but, since the end of the Cold War, to spread the triumphant "End of History" model of democracy and capitalism worldwide. It is a purely intellectual, think-tank and academic movement, and has never acquired a mass electoral base, although many voters are sympathetic to its goals.

The alt-right has a more complex history. It began as a paleoconservative/libertarian resistance to George W. Bush and his "compassionate conservatism." (Which was actually a real thing with its own intellectual background, by the way.) In its present iteration, it's mainly about white nationalism.

 

[Lancecastor]

Social Justice is Protestant Guilt, Mark IV, freeform jazz odyssey.

 

[ifrtbttrflys]

At one end of the civil government teeter tooter sits individual liberty; at the other end sits socialism: every from of government weighs in somewhere between those two points.

Individual liberty is the natural law that individual man is his own government first, and that he only cedes that self-government to the degree he voluntarily chooses to engage with others - thus the beginning of civil government itself. Individual liberty places individuals as the full bosses over that civil government, since it is individuals who voluntarily agree to create that government in the first place. This is the basic tenet of America's revolutionary political foundation.

Socialism is simply individuals (community organizers to communist tyrants) declaring that government itself rules over all, that it is the collective which is more vital than the individual. Social justice is simply socialists acting - in innumerable ways - to tip further the weight of the teeter tooter of civil government toward the socialism end.

Social justice is simply socialists demanding "justice" for their collective cause(s).

 

[KingOrfeo]

At one end of the civil government teeter tooter sits individual liberty; at the other end sits socialism: every from of government weighs in somewhere between those two points.

That's even dumber than the Nolan Chart.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

"Social justice" are those government policies and programs one advocates when regular justice doesn't get them all they truly deserve.

Hey, sometimes that IS true, but it's not as if my take is wholly out of bounds.

 

[Conager]

Hey, sometimes that IS true, but it's not as if my take is wholly out of bounds.

"Deserves got nothing to do with it." Clint Eastwood as William Munny in Unforgiven