What is "Social Justice"?

It's a Progressive term that equates well with Marxism. It's used for redistribution of wealth and social and economic planning. It strips Lady Justice of her blindfold and uses justice as a sword.

From socialworkers.com...

http://www.socialworkers.org/...

"Social justice is the view that everyone deserves equal economic, political and social rights and opportunities."

How is that achieved?

social justice is going out of business, when any dude who runs a restaurant and refuses service, or treats any specific, individual, or any number of races or appearance poorly.

Treating others as you would like to be treated.

That's all it is? Seems to be so much more.

All social justice is, is treating others as you would want to be treated. One of the words used to describe what social justice is, is 'Shalom.' Meaning the wholeness, completion, people dealing with others AS people.

Shalom is Hebrew for peace.

If that was all social justice was there would be no problem with it. However, it's not about simply being nice, it's being generous and nice by the force of the sword!

Crock of dung!

He's confused, there is 'so much more' Gracie!

Yes, no one would ever have a problem with simply being nice. It's more like being held up and robbed with a nice sounding progressive term!

There you go! :)

Hmmm, . . . I think that's the 'Golden Rule'.

No. Way more than that.

Nice words for MARXISM.

You are deluded (by people like Dan and Glen Beck).

Really, explain how you achieve the goal of social justice without taking off Justitia's blindfold?

Looking at the definition I provided, I'd say the goals of social justice would be equalizing the starting point and playing field for everyone. How is that bad? How does that differ in unblinding Justitia any more that lots of other laws do, for example ones that regulate industries and markets to similar ends?

However, my point was that folks like you, Dan, and Glen Beck just invent stuff to make it appear to be some grand, dark conspiracy. Naturally, just as with all of the cases of you folks trumping up conspiracies, you have no proof, only dark suspicions we are supposed to swallow mindlessly and uncritically.

It's only conspiratorial when you don't listen to the people doing it. They always claim Glenn Beck is putting together some vast conspiracy but in reality he's just exposing the players talking to their own people and saying what they really intend and believe. How is that a conspiracy? He just brings light to it.

You're talking about leveling the playing field when you don't really mean it. You mean to hold back the successful until the others can catch up and pass them. It's not competition, it's non-competition. It's picking the winners and losers based on race, gender and sometimes religion. It's giving 25 points for being a certain sector of society and at the same time allowing 12 for a perfect SAT score. That's social justice.

Every time Mr. Beck pulls out his blackboard and fills it with a web of words, circles, arrows, and lines he's building a conspiracy theory supported by little more than his suppositions about what he imagines something means in a dark, conspiratorial sense. You'll NEVER convince me there's a lick of sense in it.

On social justice, you are confusing the goals of the concept with what you see as bad outcomes. The outcomes of ANYTHING do not mean the goals are wrong--it may only mean that the methods used were wrong. You are laying all sorts of nonsense about what you think its results are (non-competition), when if that's true it is merely an example of social justice overreaching its definition and goals. From your side you could validly try to argue it will NEVER work for whatever reason--but just pointing out cases where it failed will never prove your case. Examples of failure in anything cannot prove the whole idea is wrong. To do that you need to attack the idea, not list individual failures.

The goals are open ended and hazy. Social Justice is whatever the people in charge decide it to be. It's not about it's happy utopian ideas, it's about what means you have to use to attain the goals.

The problem with me doing what you want is the fact that there are no clear cut goals or plans or anything for that matter. It is very much about redistribution of wealth and resources. It is very much about men deciding what is "fair" and "unfair". It's all subjective.

Since it is a concept of progressivism and the left, I am asking you to be specific about it and explain it, not me. I'm asking you to tell me how it works. I hear everyone, including the President, use the term frequently but they never really explain what it is. I believe it's because it's a term that is fluid and antithetical to justice and our form of government and society.

I'm no expert on it, but I am trained in a social science. The criticisms you raise about an idea being open ended or hazy could be said about a lot of bad social science--and if social justice is as you say it is, it is being used in a bad way. Still, it's hard (for most) to oppose increasing justice in society. Here's a list of folks trying to define it, and I will admit much of it is pretty open ended and hazy:

http://www.reachandteach.com/...

Basically, most of it is bad social science, but it's not trying to be science. Mushy liberal arts is not my cup of tea, but that's where it seems to come from. However, they need to do a stricter definition somewhere so goals can be defined and so progress can be measured. That means they need at least a little good social science in there somewhere. I hope it's there, and it should be, but it's not my field so I can't be certain.

I still contend it's a laudable goal (increasing justice in society), and should not be ignored due to poor practitioners. Like other topics here on SH, it's worth doing--so if you think it's being done badly then do it better yourself! Seriously, I mean. Now, if your attitude is that there is no problem with the distribution of justice in society, then I can see how you'd oppose the whole idea and you and I would NEVER agree even on the basics and definitions.

It's meant to be meaningless in my opinion. It's just a couple of feel good words to realign the natural order. It's like man made power over society. If you don't like the way things line up by merit, you use this arbitrary power to adjust it according to your desire, not by anything meaningful. It's used all the time when groups or organizations are lining up for grants. It's used in our school systems.

I think where we fundamentally disagree is on outcome. While many things may be laudable in theory, I care very much about the unintended consequences and outcomes, not just the intent.

It's like, we screwed up this and affected many lives, but we meant well. The good intentions were there, it just didn't work out like we'd planned. That pretty much sums up most of social and economic planning. Man is not good at realigning the stars, so to speak, but that sure doesn't keep him from trying over and over again, and the victims be damned.

That's how I see it.

You present a reasonable argument there, but that's not what you say elsewhere, which is where you condemn the entire concept and practice of social justice as being evilly intended from the outset. That is, you say not only does it not work, but it was meant not to work. You see that sort of thinking from folks on your side on a lot of topics around here, and I think it's just nonsense. Well, nonsense PLUS an actual evil intent on your parts that do genuine damage to America (through harming opinions about the intentions of people).

That's because I think some people or groups truly mean well and the rest don't. The social realignment isn't done with benevolence by the people perpetrating it, it's just sold that way to the duped.

OK.

I think you are wrong, but you are entitled you your opinion. I'd still say that you don't oppose "social justice" so much as a concept as you oppose what you believe it has done in practice.

What I'm saying is that if there is such a thing as social justice, it has to be voluntarily undertaken by society in general. For government to make laws and regulations to try and impose it, is evil. It's like telling a child they will love another child because you demand it and they'll be punished if they don't. I believe that you'd agree that it's an impossible concept and I believe it's simply used to control. In that way, it's inherently evil.

I mostly agree with you here--but I deny that social justice has ever been imposed in federal law involuntarily. Now, I would not put it past an extremist like you to say something like, "...it's not explicit in this law, but we all 'know' what was meant." No, that sort of crap is bogus.

Oh, and YES I resent MASSIVELY your assumption that I am only driven by money and "benefits". Your failure to see that any other motivation is possible shows us much more about your own drives than mine.

Again, I think you're more extreme than I am. Perhaps it's who you surround yourself with. If I listed my top ten beliefs, I'm pretty sure I'd have more taxpaying (gotta add that disclaimer) agree with me, than with you. I'm sure we'd both be in agreement with many, we'd just disagree on how you get there.

Some scheme a crazy liberal made up.

Social Justice is a LIberal plot to destroy Western Civilization. Redistribution of wealth is just one of the the several means of destruction. Socialism carried to its extreme.

Ha........I'll cave. Someone explain it.

Social Justice as found in the story of Henny Penny.

Henny Penny found some grain , the answer was always the same for the tilling the soil , planting the grain , harvesting , grinding , Baking . Not I said all the Animals.

Then When Henny Penny turned down all the offers to help eat the bread.
Henny Penny Said " I have done all the work , and I shall eat the bread myself"
Just then a government man appeared and took the bread from Henny Penny.
The Government man kept the most for his wife's vacation . Then a large part for himself. He gave what was left to his supporters and bribed a few more.

He then proclaimed the reason there was no more bread because Henny Penny was greedy and gone soft . If he is reelected that he will tax Henny Penny greatly and then give bread to all the Animals.

Exactly, then Henny Penny will give up and stop making bread, then all like Henny Penny will also give up one at a time, then there is less and less bread, until finally, they all starve to death.

As repeated demonstrated by history .

Man I thought I was nuts using that very true story these days it even makes sense in my family life! People have gone, self centered,prideful, arrogant, lazy and insane.

LMAO! That's the best modern version of Henny Penny ever! I love the part about the vacation!