4 ms·

> layering the religion of social justice You can argue the best technique to accomplish the goal, but `social justice` just means that you believe every perso

> layering the religion of social justice You can argue the best technique to accomplish the goal, but `social justice` just means that you believe every person deserves an equal opportunity to thrive. That is not a religion, that is the American dream. Social Justice is simply the idea that we actually need to work towards providing the American Dream to everyone. That shouldn't be controversial.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
twofornone 5y ago
>`social justice` just means that you believe every person deserves an equal opportunity to thrive. That is not a religion, that is the American dream No. That is the surface level definition which insidiously hides the conflation between opportunity and equity that underlies the politicized restructuring of our institutions. Equality of outcome is only possible by hindering high achievers. In part it is the purely faith based belief in the tenet of tabula rasa that makes this movement resemble a religion. There is no quality science which suggests that all people are equally capable given identical environments; in fact such an assertion would completely deny the realities of genetics and culture.
kardianos 5y ago
a. That isn't "simply" what Social Justice is. Not by a long shot, not in practice. b. It sounds like you are arguing for Equality based on merit, allowing each person a chance to thrive. I agree, that would be great. But what is actually happening is different: equity, where in practice most implementations stunt growth and paper over achievement gaps. c. I want a equal opportunity to thrive. But "social justice" is also extra-judicial justice. It sounds nice, but isn't waht I want. See also "motte and bailey".
BitwiseFool 5y ago
From my perspective, the term "Social Justice" is more of a rhetorical tool than a cohesive ideology. Yes, I know I can google "define social justice" but if you look at the results there is no agreed definition. You will instead see dozens of different think-thanks, universities, and NGOs 'define' social justice use very flowery feel-good language that is almost impossible to disagree with. And yet, the details about how to achieve such positive things are what people would actually disagree with. Your statement "That shouldn't be controversial" encapsulates this perfectly.
jimbokun 5y ago
The article pointed out that: > ...the National Society of Black Engineers (NSBE), which set in 2015 a goal to double the number of African American students taking calculus by 2025. Which would be a step towards improving educational opportunities for everyone. The new California standards are arguably going in the opposite direction. I find this to be a trend, that many pushes for "equity" in education seeks to achieve this by reducing the success of high achieving groups to match that of the low achieving groups, instead of figuring out how to get the low achieving groups to the level of the high achievers.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

twofornone 5y ago

>`social justice` just means that you believe every person deserves an equal opportunity to thrive. That is not a religion, that is the American dream No. That is the surface level definition which insidiously hides the conflation between opportunity and equity that underlies the politicized restructuring of our institutions. Equality of outcome is only possible by hindering high achievers. In part it is the purely faith based belief in the tenet of tabula rasa that makes this movement resemble a religion. There is no quality science which suggests that all people are equally capable given identical environments; in fact such an assertion would completely deny the realities of genetics and culture.

kardianos 5y ago

a. That isn't "simply" what Social Justice is. Not by a long shot, not in practice. b. It sounds like you are arguing for Equality based on merit, allowing each person a chance to thrive. I agree, that would be great. But what is actually happening is different: equity, where in practice most implementations stunt growth and paper over achievement gaps. c. I want a equal opportunity to thrive. But "social justice" is also extra-judicial justice. It sounds nice, but isn't waht I want. See also "motte and bailey".

BitwiseFool 5y ago

From my perspective, the term "Social Justice" is more of a rhetorical tool than a cohesive ideology. Yes, I know I can google "define social justice" but if you look at the results there is no agreed definition. You will instead see dozens of different think-thanks, universities, and NGOs 'define' social justice use very flowery feel-good language that is almost impossible to disagree with. And yet, the details about how to achieve such positive things are what people would actually disagree with. Your statement "That shouldn't be controversial" encapsulates this perfectly.

jimbokun 5y ago

The article pointed out that: > ...the National Society of Black Engineers (NSBE), which set in 2015 a goal to double the number of African American students taking calculus by 2025. Which would be a step towards improving educational opportunities for everyone. The new California standards are arguably going in the opposite direction. I find this to be a trend, that many pushes for "equity" in education seeks to achieve this by reducing the success of high achieving groups to match that of the low achieving groups, instead of figuring out how to get the low achieving groups to the level of the high achievers.