task0778
Diamond Member
Well, isn't it true?
Sowell defines social justice as an effort which seeks to eliminate undeserved disadvantages for selected groups. He defines 'undeserved disadvantages' by referencing Dr. Thomas Nagle's definition: 'unequal starting points' certain people have through no fault of their own. 'Certain people' today means people of color, true? There are quite a lot of others who had 'unequal starting points' too, but today's social justice warriors don't care about them. SJ isn't about equality under the law and equal treatment in society, now it's about equity. IOW outcomes, SJWs want everyone to get equal pay whether they earned it or not. And they want to discriminate against some people to even things out, true?
On November 5, 1996, Californians headed to the ballot box to weigh in on the California Civil Rights Initiative—aka Proposition 209—to end government discrimination. It read, in part:
“The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group, on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”
But this past summer the CA legislature passed a bill to abolish Prop 209, meaning they want to legally discriminate against somebody in favor of somebody else. Thankfully, the CA voters turned down the attempt to abolish Prop 209, proving at least that they ain't all brain-dead out there.
Social justice advocates say governmental policies must be put in place so that income, material possessions, unemployment rates, and leadership position outcomes are equal for all groups regardless of starting point or effort. Any deviation from 'equal outcome' is proof some form of social injustice, be it racism, sexism, or capitalist greed, is occurring. For them, " ...equality of treatment under the law is not a sufficient condition to achieve justice."
www.americanthinker.com
Wondering, who here believes that equality of treatment under the law is not a sufficient condition to achieve justice? In my book, justice is about being responsible for your own words and deeds, and if you injure someone else physically, financially, or emotionally then you pay the price for doing so. BUT - you do not pay the price for someone else's past misdeeds, that isn't justice, unless perhaps it can be proved that you profited by those misdeeds. I submit that justice cannot be obtained for those who were oppressed and no longer living, by others who are also no longer living. We should do everything we can to make sure it doesn't happen again, but to turn the tables and discriminate against people who had nothing to do with the oppression merely because they are the same color as the original oppressors is not justice. Two wrongs will never make a right.
Sowell defines social justice as an effort which seeks to eliminate undeserved disadvantages for selected groups. He defines 'undeserved disadvantages' by referencing Dr. Thomas Nagle's definition: 'unequal starting points' certain people have through no fault of their own. 'Certain people' today means people of color, true? There are quite a lot of others who had 'unequal starting points' too, but today's social justice warriors don't care about them. SJ isn't about equality under the law and equal treatment in society, now it's about equity. IOW outcomes, SJWs want everyone to get equal pay whether they earned it or not. And they want to discriminate against some people to even things out, true?
On November 5, 1996, Californians headed to the ballot box to weigh in on the California Civil Rights Initiative—aka Proposition 209—to end government discrimination. It read, in part:
“The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group, on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”
California Legislature Votes to Strike ‘the State Shall Not Discriminate’ from Constitution, Opening the Door to Legalized Discrimination | Jon Miltimore
On Thursday, the California legislature voted to strike these words from its Constitution: “The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group, on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment...
fee.org
But this past summer the CA legislature passed a bill to abolish Prop 209, meaning they want to legally discriminate against somebody in favor of somebody else. Thankfully, the CA voters turned down the attempt to abolish Prop 209, proving at least that they ain't all brain-dead out there.
Social justice advocates say governmental policies must be put in place so that income, material possessions, unemployment rates, and leadership position outcomes are equal for all groups regardless of starting point or effort. Any deviation from 'equal outcome' is proof some form of social injustice, be it racism, sexism, or capitalist greed, is occurring. For them, " ...equality of treatment under the law is not a sufficient condition to achieve justice."
'Social Justice' Means Treating Some People Unjustly
The definition of 'social justice' is imprecise. That's where the rub begins. It has precise meaning only for its user, is what the user wants it to be. So, can it be precisely defined? Perhaps, if we focus upon it...
Wondering, who here believes that equality of treatment under the law is not a sufficient condition to achieve justice? In my book, justice is about being responsible for your own words and deeds, and if you injure someone else physically, financially, or emotionally then you pay the price for doing so. BUT - you do not pay the price for someone else's past misdeeds, that isn't justice, unless perhaps it can be proved that you profited by those misdeeds. I submit that justice cannot be obtained for those who were oppressed and no longer living, by others who are also no longer living. We should do everything we can to make sure it doesn't happen again, but to turn the tables and discriminate against people who had nothing to do with the oppression merely because they are the same color as the original oppressors is not justice. Two wrongs will never make a right.
