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 c…
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.
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.