• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Social justice

What does "sociail justice" mean to you?

  • Equality

    Votes: 13 22.8%
  • Solidarity

    Votes: 7 12.3%
  • Wealth redistribution

    Votes: 21 36.8%
  • Socialism

    Votes: 16 28.1%
  • Justice

    Votes: 17 29.8%
  • Unjustice

    Votes: 11 19.3%
  • Good

    Votes: 9 15.8%
  • Evil

    Votes: 9 15.8%
  • Prosperity

    Votes: 7 12.3%
  • Other

    Votes: 17 29.8%

  • Total voters
    57
The word "morality" is very dangerous. :peace

Ok ... but if you're going to engage in almost ANY discussion about politics, or economics or anything, you're gonna run into value statements whether you like it or not, and and every political theory, political concept or political question necessarily deals with value statements and value judgements.
 
Ok ... but if you're going to engage in almost ANY discussion about politics, or economics or anything, you're gonna run into value statements whether you like it or not, and and every political theory, political concept or political question necessarily deals with value statements and value judgements.

Well, didn't I tell you that it was a matter of authority? If I as a Libertarian prevail, flat tax will be right. If you as a Socialist prevail, progressive tax will be right. Please, listen to the podcast, those things are discussed there. :)
 
Well, didn't I tell you that it was a matter of authority? If I as a Libertarian prevail, flat tax will be right. If you as a Socialist prevail, progressive tax will be right. Please, listen to the podcast, those things are discussed there. :)

Ok, well if that is your position what is there to discuss?
 
It wasn't an adhominem attack, it wasn't even an argument, it was an explination as to why I wasn't going to waste my time.

But go ahead, if you have a point to make, make it.

My point there was simply and only that you had failed to answer one.
 
No. That's a misunderstanding. A talking point that promotes a superficial view. The effort is to be "just," and not trod on anyone.

That is sadly incorrect. Social Justice as expressed politically seems to be defined by the idea of trodding on those who are identified as the historical winners in order to raise up those who are identified as the historical losers.
 
Social Justice="Ask not what you can do for your country, but ask what can your country do for you." in the same way that 'gay' used to mean happy.
 
That is sadly incorrect. Social Justice as expressed politically seems to be defined by the idea of trodding on those who are identified as the historical winners in order to raise up those who are identified as the historical losers.

You'll have to be more specific. I think you're just repeating the talking point rethoric of the uniformed.
 
Hi

I was thinking about "social justice" and wondered what it means to you when you hear the term. Please, explain. :)
On the surface, social justice is good for some, and bad for others. In reality, it's disastrous for everyone, it's just that some are used to worse all around them, so a little less worse becomes everything.
 
From a religious point of view, I would say that "Social Justice" has come too much to mean the encouragement of others to break the 10th Commandment so that you may break the first by elevating yourself.

From a political point of view, much the same - it is the encouragement of resentment an greed in order to justify taking from some to give to others.

Ah, you wish to bring religion into this argument? Fair enough:

3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

4 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

6 Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

10 Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

--Matthew 5:3-11

Not sure how much clearer Jesus could have been about his support for the oppressed and downtrodden.

Oh, and while we're on the subject of the Beatitudes: I might actually have an inkling of respect for the theocrats if they'd advocate for public display of the Beatitudes instead of the Ten Commandments.
 
Not sure how much clearer Jesus could have been about his support for the oppressed and downtrodden.

However, this is not about wealth redistribution. Social justice is pretty much about that.

OK, how about that:

Matthew 25:29 For whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them.

Does this seem like "social justice"?
 
Last edited:
I think the common interpretation of "social justice" tends to be more along the lines of saying there is an injustice with wealth being concentrated at the top, that it's unjust that people are paid less than the CEO, and that wealth needs to be redistributed.

I believe such actions are unjust. My view of social justice would be not restricting or hindering people from having the opportunity to take risks, work hard, and have a shot at the top and once they are there not penalizing them for it or confiscating their wealth or punishing their success.
 
"Social justice" is just left-wing code for "The thing we want this time. Next week it will be something different"
 
Hopefully social equality is a given. I don't find it feasible or desirable to make wealth perfectly distributed, but the 1% owning so much while others starve is too obscene.
 
You'll have to be more specific. I think you're just repeating the talking point rethoric of the uniformed.

Joe, what in our past decade plus of interaction makes you think that I am uninformed?


Social Justice broadly is used to help members identity groups that are selected for political favoritism at the expense of members of other identity groups. Whether it's pushing for "remittances" or racial preferences in hiring / school attendance, that result is the same - some are trodden on in the hope that by doing so you can lift up others.
 
Joe, what in our past decade plus of interaction makes you think that I am uninformed?

The poor sources you often use. ;)


Social Justice broadly is used to help members identity groups that are selected for political favoritism at the expense of members of other identity groups. Whether it's pushing for "remittances" or racial preferences in hiring / school attendance, that result is the same - some are trodden on in the hope that by doing so you can lift up others.

I asked for specifics and not more tripe. "Remittances" as in affirmative action efforts, could only be done legally by court order, and then only in response to proven injustices, like monetary rewards given when harm is shown to occur. Then law never gave license to take from anyone to give to another. Many are completely ignorant if the law, believing the misinformation of their pundits over actual accurate reading of the law.
 
The poor sources you often use. ;)

No, you have "disagrees with me" confused with "obviously therefore factually incorrect". I realize that for a member of the ivory tower, it may be difficult to distinguish between "conservative" and "obviously therefore factually incorrect", as it's not part of your training to differentiate between peoples' evidence and their conclusions when their conclusions challenge the zeitgeist, but you've been around these places long enough you should know better.

I asked for specifics and not more tripe. "Remittances" as in affirmative action efforts, could only be done legally by court order, and then only in response to proven injustices, like monetary rewards given when harm is shown to occur. Then law never gave license to take from anyone to give to another. Many are completely ignorant if the law, believing the misinformation of their pundits over actual accurate reading of the law.

Affirmative action programs are indeed a specific example of "social justice" in the action of trodding on some hoping to lift up others (and, broadly, doing a horrible job at that). Remittances in social justice terminology are used often as payments to all the members of a politically preferred identity group, not individual direct victims of a crime; as an example, demands for remittances to American Indians for loss of territorial sovereignty, or african americans for slavery. Those who push "social justice" are also very much indeed active in seeking laws which take from some solely for the purpose of giving to others - in fact, this is now almost half of what the Federal Government does.
 
Ah, you wish to bring religion into this argument? Fair enough:

Not sure how much clearer Jesus could have been about his support for the oppressed and downtrodden.

Agreed. I would simply argue (if you will note my original piece, to which you responded) that we do not help the oppressed or downtrodden by preaching or spreading the ideals that have become associated with 'social justice'. You do not help someone by giving them either a sense of entitlement or a desire for revenge.

Oh, and while we're on the subject of the Beatitudes: I might actually have an inkling of respect for the theocrats if they'd advocate for public display of the Beatitudes instead of the Ten Commandments.

:) A novel idea.
 
I voted other because I think social justice, at least nowadays, has become adopted as a leftwing call to political activism to further its goals, primarily legislative action that sanctions inequality under the law to combat (real or perceived) naturally/spontaneously occurring inequalities.

The phrase 'social justice' has been tainted by those who feel justified in demanding from others what they have not earned for themselves.


What it USED TO mean, IMO, was voluntarily helping those who are desperately trying to improve their position by the sweat of their brow, and those who have found an inpenetrable wall in their path that they need help climbing over.


Do you have any supporting sources that this particular term ever meant this? /interested
 
No, you have "disagrees with me" confused with "obviously therefore factually incorrect". I realize that for a member of the ivory tower, it may be difficult to distinguish between "conservative" and "obviously therefore factually incorrect", as it's not part of your training to differentiate between peoples' evidence and their conclusions when their conclusions challenge the zeitgeist, but you've been around these places long enough you should know better.

No, I make no such mistake. Your sources have in fact been shown inaccurate.

Affirmative action programs are indeed a specific example of "social justice" in the action of trodding on some hoping to lift up others (and, broadly, doing a horrible job at that). Remittances in social justice terminology are used often as payments to all the members of a politically preferred identity group, not individual direct victims of a crime; as an example, demands for remittances to American Indians for loss of territorial sovereignty, or african americans for slavery. Those who push "social justice" are also very much indeed active in seeking laws which take from some solely for the purpose of giving to others - in fact, this is now almost half of what the Federal Government does.

Demands don't actually equal action. Nor is payment for lands taken equal to your charge. As no such actual remittance has taken place, no law unfairly moving anyone over another, your charge is still baseless.
 
Social Justice="Ask not what you can do for your country, but ask what can your country do for you." in the same way that 'gay' used to mean happy.

Of coarse, nationstates and communities EXIST for the sake of people, not the other way around.
 
On the surface, social justice is good for some, and bad for others. In reality, it's disastrous for everyone, it's just that some are used to worse all around them, so a little less worse becomes everything.

Nonsense, social justice is a concept, not a specific system.
 
I just found this on the UN website, if someone want to know.
I'm reading the "Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization" of the International Labour Organization. So far it's not very promising. :)
 
No, I make no such mistake. Your sources have in fact been shown inaccurate.

...no. My sources have mostly been shown to disagree with you in the interpretation of data, which you confuse with inaccuracy. Factually speaking, they are no more or less right than any other media source.

Demands don't actually equal action. Nor is payment for lands taken equal to your charge.

which does not keep that from being the Social Justice demand, and they can be discussed in the context of what those who are dedicated to it are pursuing. It would be rather disengenious, for example, to claim that the pro life movement does not wish (broadly) to use the coercive power of the state to radically restrict abortion simply because they have not succeeded in doing so.

As no such actual remittance has taken place, no law unfairly moving anyone over another, your charge is still baseless.

Yeah, I like how you skip over affirmative action and the other hundreds of billions that we spend on "social justice" projects that take from some to give to others. :roll: Because nobody saw that.
 
Back
Top Bottom