Turn on thread page Beta

Justice is justice. Social Justice is injustice. watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Words like justice, truth, and fairness don’t require qualifiers. By adding the term “social” to “justice” we corrupt its’ meaning. Equal does not mean identically gifted. A fair society will judge individuals by their own merit. A just society will achieve equality by measuring opportunity instead of outcome.

    It is unrealistic to expect groups that developed in different geographies, climates, circumstances, and cultures to achieve identical results from identical opportunities. Diversity is a wonderful thing when it occurs of its’ own accord. When it’s engineered through social coercion, the inevitable result is frustration, and distrust. In the name of social justice we develop quotas, weighted testing, safe spaces, micro aggressions, and trigger warnings. An absurd attempt to jam a cornucopia of different people into a forcibly homogenized mixture that is as unpalatable as it is unnatural.

    If we could effectively wipe racism, bias, and discrimination from the minds of all humans and took no other measures whatsoever:

    • Every race, gender, and culture would still not be equally represented in every occupation.
    • Every race, gender, and culture would still not be equally represented in income.
    • Every race, gender, and culture would still not be equally represented in life expectancy.
    • Every race, gender, and culture would still not report the same quality of life.


    Social Justice Warriors will not be satisfied until every race, gender and culture are equally represented in every measurable outcome regardless of the measure of available opportunity. That’s why it’s called Social Justice instead of Justice.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    This is the sort of bait that'll get you a lot of reps on this site but doesnt actual mean anything and will make you think you're clever.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    your comments are so vague that i don't know how to respond. lol except i think you might be drinking too much Jordan Peterson and you don't know what social justice is or what us 'social justice warriors' want.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by titanlou)
    This is the sort of bait that'll get you a lot of reps on this site but doesnt actual mean anything and will make you think you're clever.
    (Original post by Joleee)
    your comments are so vague that i don't know how to respond. lol except i think you might be drinking too much Jordan Peterson and you don't know what social justice is or what us 'social justice warriors' want.
    Cliff's notes version of the post:

    - People are different.
    - Equality of opportunity is better than equality of outcome.
    - Equality of outcome probably won't be achieved in a fair society, because people are different, and there's nothing wrong with that.
    - Social justice, which seeks to contradict the above, is therefore unfair and unnecessary.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Equity is a generally better idea than an unreflexive equality in my view. What constitutes 'fairness' depends on what you believe philosophically. If, like me, you are sceptical about the existence of free-will (or even just sceptical about its extent) then this will strongly inform how you think of these issues.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joleee)
    your comments are so vague that i don't know how to respond. lol except i think you might be drinking too much Jordan Peterson and you don't know what social justice is or what us 'social justice warriors' want.
    That was beautiful. You didn't once reference a thing he said nor did you even attempt to refute it
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dandaman1)
    Cliff's notes version of the post:

    - People are different.
    - Equality of opportunity is better than equality of outcome.
    - Equality of outcome probably won't be achieved in a fair society, because people are different, and there's nothing wrong with that.
    - Social justice, which seeks to contradict the above, is therefore unfair and unnecessary.
    haha okay thanks for the summary.

    i don't disagree with points 1-3 and i don't think liberals do either. i think Jordan Peterson fans get it wrong and don't do their own research; where is the proof that the left wants equality of outcome?

    equality of opportunity is so complicated and because it's rooted in discrimination it keeps certain groups where they are when we need more of them especially in legal and political positions. but people with privilege don't mind 'equality of opportunity' because they're already favoured; they set the terms so it works for them.

    i just wish Peterson fans would stop relying on his word like it's the bible. no one should base their education on one person's opinion and i think Peterson would tell you the same thing (except it might hurt book sales).

    oh yeah i totally agree that free-will is limited. that would be another great thread. ;-)
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by limetang)
    That was beautiful. You didn't once reference a thing he said nor did you even attempt to refute it
    i was so confused i didn't know what the question was.
    Online

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joleee)
    I don't disagree with points 1-3 and i don't think liberals do either. i think Jordan Peterson fans get it wrong and don't do their own research; where is the proof that the left wants equality of outcome?
    I would strongly argue affirmative action promotes outcome rather than opportunity.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    I would strongly argue affirmative action promotes outcome rather than opportunity.
    what's affirmative action in the UK? how does it work in practice?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    White men continue to tell the rest of us how to think and what to be outraged by...Nothing's changed in the last 100 years. Toxic masculinity has no place in 2018.
    Online

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joleee)
    what's affirmative action in the UK? how does it work in practice?
    Positive discrimination is a policy that the left adore.

    Labour use it all the time. For example, a teacher of mine was running to be a member of the European Parliament from the Labour party. Now, Labour have a policy in which females are artificially skyrocketed to the top of the list or something like that - essentially, they have an advantage. So even though my teacher (who was male) got the more votes/support or something like that, he was knocked down 1 space because a women was pushed to the top (even though she had less support and was less qualified). As a result, he became a history teacher rather than sitting in Staursbergg. All because he was born with a penis rather than a vagina. Sad times.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    Positive discrimination is a policy that the left adore.

    Labour use it all the time. For example, a teacher of mine was running to be a member of the European Parliament from the Labour party. Now, Labour have a policy in which females are artificially skyrocketed to the top of the list or something like that - essentially, they have an advantage. So even though my teacher (who was male) got the more votes/support or something like that, he was knocked down 1 space because a women was pushed to the top (even though she had less support and was less qualified). As a result, he became a history teacher rather than sitting in Staursbergg. All because he was born with a penis rather than a vagina. Sad times.
    So how do you suggest addressing historic bias and prejudice then?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    "Social justice" is just Marxism in its latest, even stupider iteration, mainly preying on the minds of mentally unstable "Millennials" with daddy issues. There's really not much more to this moronic ideology, constituted as it is by a garbled, incomplete understanding of history, weird deterministic preconceptions with little to no roots in biology or psychology, and bizarrely categorical moral pronouncements based on fetishised versions of poorly formed concepts like "equality".

    I like Ben Shapiro and Vox Day's take on it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    Positive discrimination is a policy that the left adore.

    Labour use it all the time. For example, a teacher of mine was running to be a member of the European Parliament from the Labour party. Now, Labour have a policy in which females are artificially skyrocketed to the top of the list or something like that - essentially, they have an advantage. So even though my teacher (who was male) got the more votes/support or something like that, he was knocked down 1 space because a women was pushed to the top (even though she had less support and was less qualified). As a result, he became a history teacher rather than sitting in Staursbergg. All because he was born with a penis rather than a vagina. Sad times.
    it sounds like you're not much of an authority on the subject since you can't tell me how positive action works or its affect on society, except for one person and even then you don't know how or why it worked out that way. no worries, though; i'll do my own research.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah, you do your "research" and let us know how you get on. Some people live in total bubbles.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TCA2b)
    Yeah, you do your "research" and let us know how you get on. Some people live in total bubbles.
    your 'argument' didn't tell me anything either. but i won't argue with trolls.
    • Very Important Poster
    Online

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by ckingalt)
    Words like justice, truth, and fairness don’t require qualifiers. By adding the term “social” to “justice” we corrupt its’ meaning. Equal does not mean identically gifted. A fair society will judge individuals by their own merit. A just society will achieve equality by measuring opportunity instead of outcome.

    It is unrealistic to expect groups that developed in different geographies, climates, circumstances, and cultures to achieve identical results from identical opportunities. Diversity is a wonderful thing when it occurs of its’ own accord. When it’s engineered through social coercion, the inevitable result is frustration, and distrust. In the name of social justice we develop quotas, weighted testing, safe spaces, micro aggressions, and trigger warnings. An absurd attempt to jam a cornucopia of different people into a forcibly homogenized mixture that is as unpalatable as it is unnatural.

    If we could effectively wipe racism, bias, and discrimination from the minds of all humans and took no other measures whatsoever:

    • Every race, gender, and culture would still not be equally represented in every occupation.
    • Every race, gender, and culture would still not be equally represented in income.
    • Every race, gender, and culture would still not be equally represented in life expectancy.
    • Every race, gender, and culture would still not report the same quality of life.


    Social Justice Warriors will not be satisfied until every race, gender and culture are equally represented in every measurable outcome regardless of the measure of available opportunity. That’s why it’s called Social Justice instead of Justice.
    Either you are dim or you deliberately misunderstand the idea of equality of opportunity.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HighOnGoofballs)
    I would strongly argue affirmative action promotes outcome rather than opportunity.
    Irony is that many advocates of affirmative action say the opposite, which demonstrates precisely why "equality of opportunity" is a bit of a subjective phantom.
    Online

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mojojojo101)
    So how do you suggest addressing historic bias and prejudice then?
    Not through more prejudice and bias, thank you very much.

    I swear, the phrase 'cant fight fire with fire' is absolutely lost upon you.

    Also, to answer your question, I have no reason to condone radical policies such as AC on the shoddy evidence that such historic bias and prejudice exists today.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
 
 
 

2,780

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.