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

[BotanyBoy]

Oh look nobody was able to point out actual white privilege or explicitly define what social justices are needed for POC/women and how exactly to shit on white guys to get it.

Nothing but vague bull fuckin' shit.

That's even dumber than the Nolan Chart.

It's actually not. Socialism = government control and is the antithesis of individual liberty in every single way. Capitalism (right) is commerce without government controls....freedom.

Left = gubbmint regulatin with communism at the extreem left.....right = freedom from that shit with total anarchy at it's extreme. It's not any more complicated than that.


You just don't like it because it highlights how fuckin' evil your brand of control freak, freedom hating, anti-American politics is.

 

[KingOrfeo]

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

He wasn't talking about justice. Deserves do got something to do with justice.

 

[KingOrfeo]

You just don't like it because it highlights how fuckin' evil your brand of control freak, freedom hating, anti-American politics is.

You are manifestly in no position to say anything about what is evil.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You are manifestly in no position to say anything about what is evil.

Said the guy who is such a monumental control freak he wants to send government thought police after everyone LMFAO!!!

And why would I be in no position to say anything about what is evil? I've seen a whole lot more of it than most people who live in the 1st world.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

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

Subjective rephrasing that goes directly to the Colonel's well-worded point.

 

[KingOrfeo]

And why would I be in no position to say anything about what is evil?

Because you have no sense of moral judgment worthy of the name. Because there is no love or compassion or empathy in you whatsoever. Because you are a sociopath.

 

[ifrtbttrflys]

There are basically three factors which reveal the general make-up of any society:

1. Politics
2. Economics
3. Culture

Individual liberty and socialism are the opposite ends of the political scale.

Capitalism and communism are the opposite ends of the economic scale.

Culture, at its top collective level, simply reflects how any society blends both.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Because you have no sense of moral judgment worthy of the name.

Only a good bleeding heart socialist has that am I right???

Because there is no love or compassion or empathy in you whatsoever. Because you are a sociopath.

Absolute bullshit.

 

[Conager]

He wasn't talking about justice. Deserves do got something to do with justice.

Who, specifcally, "deserves" what, from whom, and why?

 

[BotanyBoy]

Who, specifcally, "deserves" what, from whom, and why?

I've been asking what social justice and why for about a year now, not a single fucking answer.

Imagine that.

They CAN'T be specific about it...they got nothing.

 

[Hard_Rom]

"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.

That was a good definition of 'social justice'. If it is perverted by the undeserving or ignored by the privileged in real life, it is no less the definition of 'social justice'.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Who, specifcally, "deserves" what, from whom, and why?

"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

That is what everyone deserves, from everyone else, and the "why" is simply a matter of common decency.

 

[LincolnDuncan]

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."

I should be embarrassed? Should I be embarrassed because I respect your opinion? Sorry. Maybe at one time I respected your opinion but you have sunk to the level of the rest of the right wing sludge who posts on this forum. Should I be embarrassed because I made an erroneous comment and now all of the other posters are laughing at me? Sorry. I'm not here to make friends and influence people. It would be silly for me to be concerned of the opinion of anonymous internet posters I'll never meet.

You posted something about social justice which I honestly didn't even read and I posted a snarky comment that was obviously not thought out. You came after me and that's fair. I'm not particularly interested in your definitions of social justice and legal justice.

What I am, is a civil rights activist primarily focused these days on criminal justice issues. I posted in this thread a link to an article showing that John Erlichman admitted that the drug war which continues to this day was initiated to criminally marginalize black people. If you would like to exchange thoughts on that topic I would be happy to participate in such a discussion.

 

[water505]

You are manifestly in no position to say anything about what is evil.

What the fuck????

 

[water505]

I've been asking what social justice and why for about a year now, not a single fucking answer.

Imagine that.

They CAN'T be specific about it...they got nothing.

It's hard to define something that doesn't exist.

 

[KingOrfeo]

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."

Well, there you are. In those instances, legal justice is re-codified to produce social justice because social justice was not part of legal justice previously. I.e., social justice is a separate and distinct concept from legal justice.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

That was a good definition of 'social justice'. If it is perverted by the undeserving or ignored by the privileged in real life, it is no less the definition of 'social justice'.

If the frequency of the common day use of the term is dominated by perversion and abuse, the legitimacy of the term has been mortally compromised. Why do you think the perverted absconded with it?

That is where we largely are today with groups like Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter. It is why when someone wants to talk about 'social justice' to me, I am going to press the same question Botany Boy has been demanding: which SPECIFIC injustice do you wish to correct? Because even a dozen murderous racist cops do not warrant a social movement whose objective seems to be the indictment of organized law enforcement as a whole. Nor does a street long line of inside traders and embezzlers serve to indict the institution of free market capitalism and the regulated buying and selling of securities.

So you can worship your laudable definition of the phrase all you want. I'm far more concerned with the greater injustices which would all too often be persued under its banner.

It ain't that unlike Klan members who try to claim with a straight face, "We aren't anti-black. We're just pro-white." Uh, huh.

 

[Hard_Rom]

Advances in social justice were obviously more apparent in older times. Votes for women, votes for blacks, legislation on working conditions are all examples of social justice being translated into legislation. Affirmative action laws to try reverse years of social injustice are another.

Conditions for the most part have to the point we are fine tuning social justice or perhaps picking nits. We also have to be on constant guard to ensure reversals do not occur due to the almighty dollar or the tyranny of the masses.

 

[Conager]

Well, there you are. In those instances, legal justice is re-codified to produce social justice because social justice was not part of legal justice previously. I.e., social justice is a separate and distinct concept from legal justice.

It is separate and distinct because it has nothing to do with justice, counselor. Perhaps heard the phrase Justice is blind? How about equal protection under the law? Favoritism regardless of how well-intentioned it is or how "deserving" the class of recipient on the basis of race is unlawful under the 14th Amendment.

 

[KingOrfeo]

It's hard to define something that doesn't exist.

Not at all; mathematicians do it all the time.

 

[RobDownSouth]

He doesn't realize that Nazis were textbook socialist because he's an uneducated degenerate socialist himself.

Ronald Reagan began his career as a nominal liberal and ended up a conservative.

The Nazi party began as a nominal "socialist" organization and ended up fascist beyond anything ever seen to that point.

People change, organizations change.

Dummy.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Well, there you are. In those instances, legal justice is re-codified to produce social justice because social justice was not part of legal justice previously. I.e., social justice is a separate and distinct concept from legal justice.

And all I am saying is that we have seen too many examples over the years where that codification has produced an abomination of justice, social OR legal, and that the desire for more perversion continues unabated.

Two noteworthy cases come to mind where, had it not been for the intervention of the United States Supreme Court the legalized perversion of justice through a local St. Louis statute (R.A.V. vs City of St. Paul - 1992) and a civil suit award from a local jury (Snyder vs Phelps - 2011) would have stood as legal precedent. That kind of justice which headbutts the First Amendment, we don't need.

 

[RobDownSouth]

...It is why when someone wants to talk about 'social justice' to me, I am going to press the same question Botany Boy has been demanding: which SPECIFIC injustice do you wish to correct?

Challenge made, challenge accepted.

How about we take on the "black-white incarceration gap" first?

I'm sure you're aware of the disproportionate sentencing differences between white and non-whites convicted for the exact same crime.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I should be embarrassed? Should I be embarrassed because I respect your opinion? Sorry. Maybe at one time I respected your opinion but you have sunk to the level of the rest of the right wing sludge who posts on this forum. Should I be embarrassed because I made an erroneous comment and now all of the other posters are laughing at me? Sorry. I'm not here to make friends and influence people. It would be silly for me to be concerned of the opinion of anonymous internet posters I'll never meet.

You posted something about social justice which I honestly didn't even read and I posted a snarky comment that was obviously not thought out. You came after me and that's fair. I'm not particularly interested in your definitions of social justice and legal justice.

What I am, is a civil rights activist primarily focused these days on criminal justice issues. I posted in this thread a link to an article showing that John Erlichman admitted that the drug war which continues to this day was initiated to criminally marginalize black people. If you would like to exchange thoughts on that topic I would be happy to participate in such a discussion.

Quite apart from your admission of making a snarky comment about a post you didn't even read, what the holy fuck does the asinine perverted opinions of the (gratefully) dead Nixonian henchman John Ehrlichmann about his vile use of perfectly reasonable federal drug laws have to do with the rest of this thread?

If you want to make the argument that the selective enforcement of valid criminal drug laws can be and, in fact, was used to unfairly marginalize black people, then who am I to dispute John Ehrlichmann. May he rot in hell.

If, however, you want to try and extrapolate the fact that the non-selective enforcement of those same laws nonetheless resulted in a disproportionate racial make up of incarcerated drug felons skews toward minorities and therefore is itself prima facie evidence of social injustice engineered by the likes of John Ehrlichmann and others, I would tell you two things:

1. With respect to "engineering," you're largely full of shit. The "injustice" of social inequality, to the extent it is largely circumstantial does NOT qualify as an INJUSTICE, however, socially regrettable. The targeted activities of pricks like John Ehrlichmann are a totally different matter and fully deserve criminal sanctions and redress. The key to TRUE social justice is being able to tell the difference and apply the APPROPRIATE measures of correction to each cause. Most people, including you, are not particularly discriminating either in differentiating cause or applying affect.

2. The abuse of socially just criminal and administrative law statutes by corrupt politicians or enforcement agents does NOT invalidate those statutes or justify a disproportionate remedy that would disadvantage or infringe upon the rights and property of those who had no role in perpetuating the abuse. THAT is what SO MUCH of the debate concerning "social justice" revolves around, and the charge of callous disregard for the plight of the disenfranchised is more than matched by the callous disregard for the rights of those who would be charged with providing the full cost of reparations.

And despite your beliefs to the contrary, I am squarely on the sides of both groups of people.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Challenge made, challenge accepted.

How about we take on the "black-white incarceration gap" first?

I'm sure you're aware of the disproportionate sentencing differences between white and non-whites convicted for the exact same crime.

See my last post.