None of those examples you cite have anything to do with social justice. Social justice is a well defined idea. You are conflating the idea of people who conveniently misuse the term. It's like people claiming to be Christian who in effect adopt the most unchristian-like attitudes in their daily lives and attitudes towards other.
None of those examples you cite have anything to do with social justice. Social justice is a well defined idea. You are conflating the idea of people who conveniently misuse the term. It's like people claiming to be Christian who in effect adopt the most unchristian-like attitudes in their daily lives and attitudes towards other.
There is no enforcing body nor rulebook nor bible akin to Christianity for 'social justice' in which to scrutinise or compare, and unlike a religion where some sort of deity who enforces some rules is implied, there is no specific standard or gatekeeping that occurs in this context.
Social justice is defined by a combination of those who identify as the group, and what the group as a whole does in response when they commit crimes or hypocrisies.
I reject the association myself. I do not need to identify with an arbitrary movement in order to be fair handed with people.
Of course one does not need to be a member of a specific group to adopt the principles of social justice which in global terms covers Human Rights, Access, Participation and Equity in society. However specific groups like BLM is an example of racial inequality which is most definitely a social justice issue. So BLM does legitimately come under the umbrella of Social Justice. The same goes for any sub-group of society which is unfairly treated because they belong to that subgroup.
How some people behave within any subgroup is entirely a different matter but does not necessarily de-legitimise the group as a whole or their founding principles.
" one does not need to be a member of a specific group to adopt the principles of social justice which in global terms covers Human Rights, Access, Participation and Equity in society"
I don't consider it to have any principles, and certainly I would not be dictated to by some "global terms". After all, being fair handed is not the same as being dictated to by a global corporate set of groupthink ideologies that are out-of-touch with reality.
"How some people behave within any subgroup is entirely a different matter but does not necessarily de-legitimise the group as a whole or their founding principles."
It does if they proclaim to be bringing black equality and then disenfranchise black people without being called out in any meaningful context by the group. I'd call that a fraud or a scam.
"specific groups like BLM is an example of racial inequality which is most definitely a social justice issue. So BLM does legitimately come under the umbrella of Social Justice"
This contradicts your earlier point where you said:
"None of those examples you cite have anything to do with social justice. Social justice is a well defined idea."
How comes you couldn't recognise it as social justice before if it is a "well defined idea"?
You are right. I should have been more specific in my response. That's the danger of making sweeping statements which I did. I've since clarified my thinking on that.
None of those examples you cite have anything to do with social justice. Social justice is a well defined idea. You are conflating the idea of people who conveniently misuse the term. It's like people claiming to be Christian who in effect adopt the most unchristian-like attitudes in their daily lives and attitudes towards other.
The one example I give - BLM (Black Lives Matter) explicitly identify themselves as a social justice organisation (https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/black-lives-matter-growth-new-social-justice-movement/).
The individual who purchased the mansion not only identifies as BLM, but as one of the co-founders (
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/controversial-blm-co-founder-doled-out-8-million-of-groups-money-for-canadian-mansion-financial-records-show). I could also reference the black businesses that were destroyed during the BLM protests (https://www.shorenewsnetwork.com/2020/09/06/no-justice-as-blm-burns-black-owned-business-in-rochester/).
There is no enforcing body nor rulebook nor bible akin to Christianity for 'social justice' in which to scrutinise or compare, and unlike a religion where some sort of deity who enforces some rules is implied, there is no specific standard or gatekeeping that occurs in this context.
Social justice is defined by a combination of those who identify as the group, and what the group as a whole does in response when they commit crimes or hypocrisies.
I reject the association myself. I do not need to identify with an arbitrary movement in order to be fair handed with people.
Of course one does not need to be a member of a specific group to adopt the principles of social justice which in global terms covers Human Rights, Access, Participation and Equity in society. However specific groups like BLM is an example of racial inequality which is most definitely a social justice issue. So BLM does legitimately come under the umbrella of Social Justice. The same goes for any sub-group of society which is unfairly treated because they belong to that subgroup.
How some people behave within any subgroup is entirely a different matter but does not necessarily de-legitimise the group as a whole or their founding principles.
" one does not need to be a member of a specific group to adopt the principles of social justice which in global terms covers Human Rights, Access, Participation and Equity in society"
I don't consider it to have any principles, and certainly I would not be dictated to by some "global terms". After all, being fair handed is not the same as being dictated to by a global corporate set of groupthink ideologies that are out-of-touch with reality.
"How some people behave within any subgroup is entirely a different matter but does not necessarily de-legitimise the group as a whole or their founding principles."
It does if they proclaim to be bringing black equality and then disenfranchise black people without being called out in any meaningful context by the group. I'd call that a fraud or a scam.
"specific groups like BLM is an example of racial inequality which is most definitely a social justice issue. So BLM does legitimately come under the umbrella of Social Justice"
This contradicts your earlier point where you said:
"None of those examples you cite have anything to do with social justice. Social justice is a well defined idea."
How comes you couldn't recognise it as social justice before if it is a "well defined idea"?
You are right. I should have been more specific in my response. That's the danger of making sweeping statements which I did. I've since clarified my thinking on that.