-->@oromagiThe first result when searching "social justice definition" into Google is:
- justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society.
This is also the typical meaning among proponents of social justice. Do you disagree with this definition?
Why would any good citizen be against social justice?
My point had nothing to do with who Nick Fuentes is.Your point wasn't addressed to me or to this topic. You were addressing conservatives and appealing for further radicalization. FOX News, Ben Shapiro, Donald Trump- they are now the RINO left and will be purged when the great storm comes. All of which seems pretty non-sequitur.You invited us (and me particularly) to say what we want about little boys who hate so much they drop out of school and try to kill their country. So I did.
-->@oromagiI wouldn't be so cavalier in defining social justice as to equate it with Socialism. But your understanding of the phrase is important when considered in the context of your question from post #3:Why would any good citizen be against social justice?I think you would agree how one defines social justice is crucial in being able to answer this question. It is also important because you seem to be using the phrase inconsistently, but that is yet to be determined.
There are two distinct features of social justice, at least as it is most commonly understood, that would be helpful to clarify.First, social justice aims for equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity.
Second, based on phrasing such as "community level" justice, I assume you would agree that social justice focuses on groups (such as race or gender) rather than focusing on individuals. That would mean that a focus on equality of outcomes is based on group outcomes, not individual ones.
Injustice can be identified as disparities that exist between groups. When a disparity is found, justice demands we redistribute wealth/privilege/opportunity from the advantaged group to the disadvantaged group.
Have I misrepresented your understanding of social justice?
First, social justice aims for equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity.I don't accept rather than. Justice wants improvement in both. I don't see how you get to more equal outcomes in a fair and reasonable way without improving equality of opportunity.
No. I think of communities as a mix of race, gender, and many other groups.
It might be nice to strive for communities that are more alike in opportunities and outcomes but to enforce equality would not be fair or reasonable and therefore not just.
When has this ever been true anywhere ever? This sounds very like the Fox News Strawman Socialist and unlike any social justice movement I've ever heard of.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law requiring publicly traded corporations headquartered in California to appoint directors from underrepresented communities to their boards, the first law in the country to dictate the racial makeup of corporate boards....“When we talk about racial justice, we talk about power and needing to have seats at the table,” the governor said during a press conference on Wednesday....“The new law represents a big step forward for racial equity,” one of the bill’s authors Assemblyman Chris Holden, a Democrat from Pasadena, said in a statement. “While some corporations were already leading the way to combat implicit bias, now, all of California’s corporate boards will better reflect the diversity of our state.”Holden says research shows that public support for social justice often does not lead to lasting reforms needed to boost hiring and retention....In 2022, boards with four to nine people must have at least two members from an underrepresented community and boards with nine or more people must have at least three. Companies that don’t comply could face stiff fines.Underrepresented communities are defined as people who identify as Black, Latino, Native American, Asian American, Pacific Islander, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Natives.
Don't expect hypocrisy to stop the Left from their crusade to topple Western civilization.
I don't believe in banning any speech unless it would cause immediate harm like yelling fire in a crowded theater. I do however do not think they should be able to block access to a clinic or intimidate people going into a clinic. That is actually trying to restrict or intimidate people from seeking a service that is legal.
Could you please explain what “topple western civilization” means?
Your notion absolutely works and is the best for a majority White nation
Your notion absolutely works and is the best for a majority White nation.-. dude
Things like individual liberty and inalienable rights would be included in "Western civilization."
Thanks for that. Now can you explain how individual liberty at risk of being toppled?
Totalitarianism and individual liberty are incompatible.
dude this is what you do most times i argue with you especially on systemic racism you either pivot to something else (i.e. critical race theory)or you call totalitarian marxism (i.e. CRT or any narrative pushed by the left you don't agree with) rather than attacking the point.
You’re using big words but saying nothing.
You responded to a post attacking the left mostly by straw manning it to suggest that it believes among other things that opposing same sex marriage is hate speech, and your response was to imply that this somehow fits into a greater plan to topple our civilization.
Can you please explain that in more than one sentence?
My original intent was only to make a comment about the willingness of the Left to engage in hypocrisy in order to fulfill their goals, not to expound upon the current revolution happening in our society.
So the left is filled with hypocrisy. Got it. Thank you for finally making that clear as opposed to talking about the toppling western civilization and totalitarianism.
