6 ms·

>>Would you rather have funds allocated towards social justice or have them spent on intimidating foreign nationals I would rather the justice department, and

>>Would you rather have funds allocated towards social justice or have them spent on intimidating foreign nationals I would rather the justice department, and labor dept choose their targets for non-political reasons, neither for "social justice" nor corporate protectionism

rfrey 4y ago
It must be one of the triumphs of capitalism that forcing employers to pay their workers what they're owed is considered a partisan action.
Clent 4y ago
What do you mean by 'social justice' and the implication it is a bad thing? I postulate, labor justice is social justice.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  "Social Justice" is a loaded political term generally aligned with Left Authoritarianism and often devoid of actual justice
  - dredmorbius 4y ago
    And who was it who loaded that term? The social justice advocates, or their opponents?
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      Both. Just like many other political labels, they start out as one thing then more and more people start using the labels and soon their orginal meaning is lost and have become something else This is caused by both advocates and opponents of the various causes, positions, and world views
      - wewtyflakes 4y ago
        I've got strong opinions and political thoughts on the term "political labels". Sure it once meant labels applied to politics, but now, who knows what it means? Both sides have misconstrued this term and now we shouldn't use it.
      - dredmorbius 4y ago
        Dating back to 1824, the term social justice refers to justice on a societal level.[11] From the early 1990s to the early 2000s, social-justice warrior was used as a neutral or complimentary phrase, as when a 1991 Montreal Gazette article describes union activist Michel Chartrand as a "Quebec nationalist and social-justice warrior".[1] Katherine Martin, the head of U.S. dictionaries at Oxford University Press, said in 2015 that "[a]ll of the examples I've seen until quite recently are lionizing the person".[1] As of 2015, the Oxford English Dictionary had not done a full search for the earliest usage.[1] Merriam-Webster dates the earliest use of the term to 1945.[6] ... According to Martin, the term switched from primarily positive to negative around 2011, when it was first used as an insult on Twitter.[1] The term first appeared on Urban Dictionary in 2011 and on the Something Awful forums in 2013.[7] According to Know Your Meme, the pejorative term "keyboard warrior", which describes a person who is unreasonably angry and hides behind their keyboard, may be a precursor to the "social justice warrior".[7] The negative connotation has primarily been aimed at those espousing views adhering to social progressivism, cultural inclusivity, or feminism.[12][1][2] Scott Selisker writes in New Literary History that the SJW is often criticised as the "stereotype of the feminist as unreasonable, sanctimonious, biased, and self-aggrandizing".[12] Use of the term has also been described as attempting to degrade the motivations of the person accused of being an SJW, implying that their motives are "for personal validation rather than out of any deep-seated conviction".[3][9] Allegra Ringo in Vice writes that "in other words, SJWs don't hold strong principles, but they pretend to. The problem is, that's not a real category of people. It's simply a way to dismiss anyone who brings up social justice."[9] The term's negative use became mainstream due to the 2014 Gamergate harassment campaign ... <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior> Numerous sources cited, notably: <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/10/07/why-social-justice-warrior-a-gamergate-insult-is-now-a-dictionary-entry/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/10...> <https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/what-does-social-justice-warrior-sjw-mean https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/what-does-soci...> <https://web.archive.org/web/20160102031743/http://recode.net/2014/10/10/understanding-the-jargon-of-gamergate/ https://web.archive.org/web/20160102031743/http://recode.net...> See also "Social Justice": <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice>
wellareyousure 4y ago
> neither for "social justice" Listen to yourself.
Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago
> I would rather the justice department, and labor dept choose their targets for non-political reasons You want the justice department, a branch of the goverment, to not be political?
- luckylion 4y ago
  > You want the justice department, a branch of the goverment, to not be political? This is like asking "you want the fire dept to not be political?" Of course you don't want the executive branch to not be political. They are the administration. If the IRS just goes after whoever the current reigning party doesn't like, you'll soon no longer have a functioning democracy.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  Yes. That should not be a shock, there are lots (in fact most) of government that is not suppose to be political, specifically when it comes to the enforcement of law. The entire premise, the entire legitimacy of the legal system is the blind scales of justice. It seems you want it to be political, that is would be a nation of despotism, oligarchs, and tyranny
  - Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago
    > that is not suppose to be political their execution shouldn't but their priortiies are entirely political mandates. When people felt unsafe in the 90s and the DoJ increased minimum sentencing was that not a political incentive? Protecting business over people, as it currently stands in their priority list, is a political decision. Changing the status quo is not "political" and remaining as is isn't. Their current directives are poltiical assignments, and rerouting resources in a more worthy endevour is the same.
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      >When people felt unsafe in the 90s and the DoJ increased minimum sentencing was that not a political incentive? No that was a change in legalization, which legislation is political, but the 90's saw TONS of anti-crime laws passed which required the non-political arms of the government to act that is how it is suppose to work, the people elect representative who pass laws, and then those laws are enforced by the non-political arm. These entities have become political in the wake of over criminalization since now as a function they have to "choose" which laws to enforce and which not to because other wise nothing would get enforced as a matter of course. The solution to this is not just acceptation that enforcement should be political, but instead removing the political choices from the non-political arms placing it back into the political space of the government (i.e the legislature) . One key way to do that for the Federal government is to return said federal government back to its constitutional bounds which today it FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR exceeds
peoplefromibiza 4y ago
In 1993, the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action treats social justice as a purpose of human rights education The declaration was signed by the US as well. So social justice is an objective of US as a whole, as a democracy, as a Country, hence is not a political view since 1993 in USA.
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > declaration was signed by the US It was never fully ratified [1]. It was ratified by Russia and, somehow, Afghanistan. [1] https://indicators.ohchr.org/ https://indicators.ohchr.org/
  - peoplefromibiza 4y ago
    That's hardly news. But you're looking in the wrong place. It was called the "Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action" it was not an agreement to be ratified, but a course of action for the UN members to follow, which includes the US. Of course in United States social justice is seen as a political stance, it's not surprising from the country that has signed and not ratified - Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women - International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights - Convention on the Rights of the Child (they do not actually think of the children, apparently) - Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities I get that the rights of people with disabilities can be a divisive argument, but they also refuted to sign for - Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women - Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights - Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and if that wasn't bad enough, they have also not signed - International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families - International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance (CIA really loves making people disappear, they couldn't possibly disappoint them) How is it possible that we call it "the greatest democracy in the World" while they are not even a real Democracy is the "greatest mystery in modern history" So, yeah, social justice is political only in USA and probably in some South American dictatorship lead by former nazis and militarily installed by yours truly the USA Not even Putin would say in public that social justice it's the patrimony of a specific Political side, because it would be a (politcal) suicide, even for a guy like Vladimir Putin who recently spoke about it citing Martin Luther King (of course it's all propaganda in his side, but still...), while in the USA, where MLK was born and was killed, his ideas are still considered "agenda" and not "Country's own values". Again: not surprising, just sad. > It was ratified by Russia and, somehow, Afghanistan. to put it mildly, in that list, as you can see, USA is the country that ratified fewer treaties. Even Iran ratified one treaty more than US. Actually there is one that did worse: Bhutan, with zero of them.

rfrey 4y ago

It must be one of the triumphs of capitalism that forcing employers to pay their workers what they're owed is considered a partisan action.

Clent 4y ago

What do you mean by 'social justice' and the implication it is a bad thing? I postulate, labor justice is social justice.

phpisthebest 4y ago
"Social Justice" is a loaded political term generally aligned with Left Authoritarianism and often devoid of actual justice
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  And who was it who loaded that term? The social justice advocates, or their opponents?
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    Both. Just like many other political labels, they start out as one thing then more and more people start using the labels and soon their orginal meaning is lost and have become something else This is caused by both advocates and opponents of the various causes, positions, and world views
    - wewtyflakes 4y ago
      I've got strong opinions and political thoughts on the term "political labels". Sure it once meant labels applied to politics, but now, who knows what it means? Both sides have misconstrued this term and now we shouldn't use it.
    - dredmorbius 4y ago
      Dating back to 1824, the term social justice refers to justice on a societal level.[11] From the early 1990s to the early 2000s, social-justice warrior was used as a neutral or complimentary phrase, as when a 1991 Montreal Gazette article describes union activist Michel Chartrand as a "Quebec nationalist and social-justice warrior".[1] Katherine Martin, the head of U.S. dictionaries at Oxford University Press, said in 2015 that "[a]ll of the examples I've seen until quite recently are lionizing the person".[1] As of 2015, the Oxford English Dictionary had not done a full search for the earliest usage.[1] Merriam-Webster dates the earliest use of the term to 1945.[6] ... According to Martin, the term switched from primarily positive to negative around 2011, when it was first used as an insult on Twitter.[1] The term first appeared on Urban Dictionary in 2011 and on the Something Awful forums in 2013.[7] According to Know Your Meme, the pejorative term "keyboard warrior", which describes a person who is unreasonably angry and hides behind their keyboard, may be a precursor to the "social justice warrior".[7] The negative connotation has primarily been aimed at those espousing views adhering to social progressivism, cultural inclusivity, or feminism.[12][1][2] Scott Selisker writes in New Literary History that the SJW is often criticised as the "stereotype of the feminist as unreasonable, sanctimonious, biased, and self-aggrandizing".[12] Use of the term has also been described as attempting to degrade the motivations of the person accused of being an SJW, implying that their motives are "for personal validation rather than out of any deep-seated conviction".[3][9] Allegra Ringo in Vice writes that "in other words, SJWs don't hold strong principles, but they pretend to. The problem is, that's not a real category of people. It's simply a way to dismiss anyone who brings up social justice."[9] The term's negative use became mainstream due to the 2014 Gamergate harassment campaign ... <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior> Numerous sources cited, notably: <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/10/07/why-social-justice-warrior-a-gamergate-insult-is-now-a-dictionary-entry/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/10...> <https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/what-does-social-justice-warrior-sjw-mean https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/what-does-soci...> <https://web.archive.org/web/20160102031743/http://recode.net/2014/10/10/understanding-the-jargon-of-gamergate/ https://web.archive.org/web/20160102031743/http://recode.net...> See also "Social Justice": <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice>

wellareyousure 4y ago

> neither for "social justice" Listen to yourself.

Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago

> I would rather the justice department, and labor dept choose their targets for non-political reasons You want the justice department, a branch of the goverment, to not be political?

luckylion 4y ago
> You want the justice department, a branch of the goverment, to not be political? This is like asking "you want the fire dept to not be political?" Of course you don't want the executive branch to not be political. They are the administration. If the IRS just goes after whoever the current reigning party doesn't like, you'll soon no longer have a functioning democracy.
phpisthebest 4y ago
Yes. That should not be a shock, there are lots (in fact most) of government that is not suppose to be political, specifically when it comes to the enforcement of law. The entire premise, the entire legitimacy of the legal system is the blind scales of justice. It seems you want it to be political, that is would be a nation of despotism, oligarchs, and tyranny
- Arkhaine_kupo 4y ago
  > that is not suppose to be political their execution shouldn't but their priortiies are entirely political mandates. When people felt unsafe in the 90s and the DoJ increased minimum sentencing was that not a political incentive? Protecting business over people, as it currently stands in their priority list, is a political decision. Changing the status quo is not "political" and remaining as is isn't. Their current directives are poltiical assignments, and rerouting resources in a more worthy endevour is the same.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    >When people felt unsafe in the 90s and the DoJ increased minimum sentencing was that not a political incentive? No that was a change in legalization, which legislation is political, but the 90's saw TONS of anti-crime laws passed which required the non-political arms of the government to act that is how it is suppose to work, the people elect representative who pass laws, and then those laws are enforced by the non-political arm. These entities have become political in the wake of over criminalization since now as a function they have to "choose" which laws to enforce and which not to because other wise nothing would get enforced as a matter of course. The solution to this is not just acceptation that enforcement should be political, but instead removing the political choices from the non-political arms placing it back into the political space of the government (i.e the legislature) . One key way to do that for the Federal government is to return said federal government back to its constitutional bounds which today it FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR exceeds

peoplefromibiza 4y ago

In 1993, the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action treats social justice as a purpose of human rights education The declaration was signed by the US as well. So social justice is an objective of US as a whole, as a democracy, as a Country, hence is not a political view since 1993 in USA.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> declaration was signed by the US It was never fully ratified [1]. It was ratified by Russia and, somehow, Afghanistan. [1] https://indicators.ohchr.org/ https://indicators.ohchr.org/
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  That's hardly news. But you're looking in the wrong place. It was called the "Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action" it was not an agreement to be ratified, but a course of action for the UN members to follow, which includes the US. Of course in United States social justice is seen as a political stance, it's not surprising from the country that has signed and not ratified - Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women - International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights - Convention on the Rights of the Child (they do not actually think of the children, apparently) - Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities I get that the rights of people with disabilities can be a divisive argument, but they also refuted to sign for - Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women - Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights - Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights - Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and if that wasn't bad enough, they have also not signed - International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families - International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance (CIA really loves making people disappear, they couldn't possibly disappoint them) How is it possible that we call it "the greatest democracy in the World" while they are not even a real Democracy is the "greatest mystery in modern history" So, yeah, social justice is political only in USA and probably in some South American dictatorship lead by former nazis and militarily installed by yours truly the USA Not even Putin would say in public that social justice it's the patrimony of a specific Political side, because it would be a (politcal) suicide, even for a guy like Vladimir Putin who recently spoke about it citing Martin Luther King (of course it's all propaganda in his side, but still...), while in the USA, where MLK was born and was killed, his ideas are still considered "agenda" and not "Country's own values". Again: not surprising, just sad. > It was ratified by Russia and, somehow, Afghanistan. to put it mildly, in that list, as you can see, USA is the country that ratified fewer treaties. Even Iran ratified one treaty more than US. Actually there is one that did worse: Bhutan, with zero of them.