Oh. well, to clarify my point, I personally want to say one thing. I am fed up with people mouthing off at how they are mistreated on any and every possible occasion. I can't do anything more about it than I already have, and there are many nice things in the world to think about instead of attacking other people continuously. Good night.

Ugh, another fragile snowflake complaining about complaining.

Ah, I remember you. I think I will leave again, like others have already, tired of their ears being filled by braying vultures. You may have the world you adore to scorn. The grave is enough for me. Terminal cancer leaves me few enough days as it is without hearing more cackles, gloats, and hoots.

Yeah, it has become weaponized.

You just proved his point. Chapeau!

Is this even related to philosophy?

I don't think that it is that simple. If you tell people that simply because they are white that they have "white privilege" and that the only solution to ending white privilege is for the federal government to engage in affirmative action or for socialism to replace capitalism, then I would be annoyed too. The social justice crowd is an obnoxious bunch and since most of them are leftists it is clear that they are politically motivated.

As one example, about this time last year all kinds of men were being done in for sexually harassing women. All PC. — ernestm

Ye old vagueries and universal declarations

The social justice crowd is an obnoxious bunch and since most of them are leftists it is clear that they are politically motivated. — Walter Pound

I think they're mostly justice motivated, but any crowd has its crabs bringing down the averages.

But since then, an incredible number of women have been mouthing off about how evil men are — ernestm

Well, taken as a whole, men are evil. Turn on your TV, and observe who it is that is ripping so many societies to shreds. The marriage between violent men and the knowledge explosion will inevitably bring civilization crashing down, as is already happening in places like Syria and Yemen etc.

Yes, yes, yes, not all men are evil, so you don't have to type that. But that's not going to matter once the evil men crash the system.

Anyone who espouses racial justice, economic justice and social justice is not simply fighting for "justice." Their brand of justice is always hiding a far left political slant.

You are giving a masterclasses at failing to hide behind your own political slant. It would be hilarious if it weren't so pathetically ironic.

Explain?

You are parroting, wittingly or not, the most standard far right conservative talking points, pissing and moaning about the Boogeyman terms and ideas like "white privilege", affirmative action and implying that they are somehow hiding their political motivations and that somehow being on the left and wanting these things you fearmonger about makes one inherently more political than you who complains about and doesn't want them. Streetlight summed it up perfectly above:

Ugh, another fragile snowflake complaining about complaining — StreetlightX

I would only alter it to "Uhg, another fragile snowflake politicking about the evils of politicking". You are just as political, and arguably worse since you don't even seem to notice your own political assumptions in how you frame and discuss these things.

I see, so I state a fact- leftists support a politically loaded definition of justice- and you think that that is an example of complaining?

Oh boy, you got me good.

No, what "gets you good" is that you are somehow ignorant of your own political assumptions when you say things like:

The social justice crowd is an obnoxious bunch and since most of them are leftists it is clear that they are politically motivated. — Walter Pound

I mean, yeah, I wonder what it would look like for someone to be clearly politically motivated? Again, pathetically ironic. Anyone who thinks their notion of Justice isn't politically motivated is a liar or a fool.

Are you just not familiar with the definition of social justice?

If you didn't know, it is inherently left wing and with it comes only left wing definitions of "justice."

You are proving the point I made. "Only the left does this" implies you have a particular conception of Justice: a right wing one. And yet you complained inanely about how "obviously political" the left's idea of justice is, ignoring your own implied one (one which excludes addressing social I'll brought about by the legal and economic systems).

If you didn't know, that's called hypocrisy.

Ugh, another fragile snowflake complaining about complaining. — StreetlightX

If you didn't know, that's called hypocrisy. — MindForged

Yeah, I know this wasn't a reply to SX, but it works as a reply and I agree. :smile:

"Only the left does this" — MindForged

When did I ever say that only the left begs the question with definitions and loaded terminology?

implies you have a particular conception of Justice: a right wing one. — MindForged

Actually, I believe that people must first defend their definitions before they start arguing over whether their political opponents demonstrate X or Y behavior.

And yet you complained inanely about how "obviously political" the left's idea of justice is, — MindForged

Since social justice falls within the political umbrella of the left, it is incorrect to say that I am doing this. Left wing doctrines are inherent to the definition of social justice- just like how individualist doctrines are inherent to right libertarianism or minarchism.

ignoring your own implied one — MindForged

I never present my own definition of justice; I only expose how leftists beg the question when they use their own definition of justice to judge who supports justice and who does not.

If you didn't know, that's called hypocrisy. — MindForged

Actually, its called being logical.

When did I ever say that only the left begs the question with definitions and loaded terminology? — Walter Pound

Joyous day, quote function deploy:

I see, so I state a fact- leftists support a politically loaded definition of justice- and you think that that is an example of complaining?

Oh boy, you got me good. — Walter Pound

That clearly implies that only the left does this and now you're trying to say otherwise. Interesting.

Actually, I believe that people must first defend their definitions before they start arguing over whether their political opponents demonstrate X or Y behavior. — Walter Pound

Besides you, of course. After all, your first post in this thread did argue about your political opponents demonstrating such behaviors:

If you tell people that simply because they are white that they have "white privilege" and that the only solution to ending white privilege is for the federal government to engage in affirmative action or for socialism to replace capitalism, then I would be annoyed too. The social justice crowd is an obnoxious bunch and since most of them are leftists it is clear that they are politically motivated. — Walter Pound

Again, this is either hypocrisy or you're changing what you believe, which is good but don't pretend otherwise.

Actually, its called being logical. — Walter Pound

"Uhg, I can't believe the left has a politically motivated conception of justice because justice obviously shouldn't include social justice, that thing only leftists include in their theories of justice."

How... "logical" of you. I forget that being subject to the exact same criticism while being ignorant of it is the thing rational people try to do. Hypocrisy or making a trivial observation (e.g. everyone does this) and thus it serves no purpose in pointing it out. Congrats.

That clearly implies that only the left does this and now you're trying to say otherwise. Interesting. — MindForged

If I said, "only leftists do x" then you would have a point. Thank goodness I never said that only leftists beg the question.

Besides you, of course. After all, your first post in this thread did argue about your political opponents demonstrating such behaviors: — MindForged

When did I say that I was against affirmative action or socialism? If you read carefully, you will see that I point out that social justice is not a politically neutral term and that is why I mentioned affirmative action and socialism- since both can be covered under someone's understanding of social justice.

Again, this is either hypocrisy or you're changing what you believe, which is good but don't pretend otherwis — MindForged

Can you quote where I ever define justice as opposing socialism, affirmative action or anything else?

Uhg, I can't believe the left has a politically motivated conception of justice because justice obviously shouldn't include social justice, that thing only leftists include in their theories of justice." — MindForged

It really is embarrassing that you have to make up quotes of things I never said, but if you reread what I wrote, then you will see that I actually think that the definition of the word "justice" must first be argued for before anyone condemns their political opponent for not supporting "justice."

Let me make things easy for you. If a libertarian said, "anyone who does not support laissez-faire capitalism does not support liberty" that libertarian is defining "liberty" in a question begging manner to support his own economic position.

When leftists define justice as wealth redistribution and high taxes, and so on, he too is begging the question for the sake of his own political goals.


Both these people first need to define their terms and actually make an argument for why their definitions are correct before they start condemning their political opponents as either tyrants or fascists.

If I said, "only leftists do x" then you would have a point. Thank goodness I never said that only leftists beg the question. — Walter Pound

Then as I concluded you are making a trivially true statement that should be so inconsequential that making it as if it mattered is silly. Most people don't say "and since most of them are leftists it is clear that they are politically motivated" and expect others to take that to be directed at anyone but the group they named (leftists, in this case).

When did I say that I was against affirmative action or socialism? If you read carefully, you will see that I point out that social justice is not a politically neutral term and that is why I mentioned affirmative action and socialism- since both can be covered under someone's understanding of social justice. — Walter Pound

I didn't say anything about those two issues. My statement was about you complaining about people "must first defend their definitions before they start arguing over whether their political opponents demonstrate X or Y behavior". This is exactly what you are doing though if your opponents are leftists who do this. You haven't asked anyone to defend their definitions, you're just pointing out their definitions are have a political slant to them: like everyone else. A trivial point.

Can you quote where I ever define justice as opposing socialism, affirmative action or anything else? — Walter Pound

Here's a fun game. Complain about something and call it annoying, and then ask people why they think you are against that thing. That's what you've done here.

It really is embarrassing that you have to make up quotes of things I never said, but if you reread what I wrote, then you will see that I actually think that the definition of the word "justice" must first be argued for before anyone condemns their political opponent for not supporting "justice." — Walter Pound

OF COURSE YOU NEVER SAID IT. I was mocking you not quoting you verbatim, like come on this is obvious. Do you really think people don't ever defend their ideas of justice? Do you really think they can't condemn a political opponent for holding a poor view of justice beforehand?

Like this is thing. If someone thinks or infers that some view entails Absurdity X, its perfectly reasonable for them to discard the view that entails Absurdity X. There can be disagreement and people can hash it out, but the idea that there needs to be a debate before they think their opponent is against justice is stupid. Everyone knows that their opponent doesn't think they are against justice, no one defines themselves as evil or unjust. But just as they don't consult the rapist about whether or not they're doing a good thing before condemning them, so too do political opponents rightly not play a meaningless philosophical game before decrying their opponents as unjust.

"Hang on, fellow Jews. Can we really call these Nazis enemies of justice as they round us up? We need to argue this first." (This is me mocking you again, just to make it extra clear. Yes it's rude, but I'm not dealing with a serious proposal so why not.)

This thread has until page 2 to get substantial or it's going.

sorry about that, I'll just duck out and save the trouble.

There are entire political philosophies whose founders spend hundreds of pages arguing for their own brand of justice. These different kinds of "justices" entail different kinds of political behaviors; just look at Rawls and compare him to Lenin or Che or Hayek or Nozick!

This is why people should first argue over the correct definition of justice before anything else.

The social justice crowd is an obnoxious bunch — Walter Pound

Just look at the description you offer: social justice. Fairness in the way people treat one another. And this offends you? I wonder why?

"Political correctness" is a slightly silly synonym for "courtesy". And the purpose of courtesy is to allow plain speech without the interchange degenerating into violence. It's a way of getting on with other humans, we being a social species. Your intolerance of others trying to treat others fairly is difficult for me to understand.

Just look at the description you offer: social justice. Fairness in the way people treat one another. And this offends you? I wonder why? — Pattern-chaser

How do you propose we treat people fairly?
Do we do it as the libertarians want to do it or as the socialists would like to do it or as social democrats would like to do it?

Should we only strive to ensure equality before the law or should equity be the driving force behind fairness?

To the OP:

I think there is indeed a culture of victimhood and outrage on the left, a PC culture that hides behind social justice and equal rights. I think it is also true that these are a fringe minority and its an error to attribute the actions/veiws of all sociel justice movements to this fringe element. Actual good comes out of Metoo and people striving for equality and social justice, even though those things are co-opted by the fringe in service of an authoritarian, virtue signaling and facist agenda.
The people who loudly and aggressively attack anyone who doesnt conform to their leftist views are just that, loud and aggressive. They arent numerous, they do not represent the majority left and they only have power in so much as others on the left, the media and corporations worried about losing profits from a dirtied public image give to them.

None of those. We just treat people fairly. It's a simple enough concept; I don't think it benefits from a political brand, do you?

[I.e. it is political, of course. Almost everything is. But fairness is well-enough understood by all of us to travel alone, without the need for it being assigned or denied to libertarians, socialists or cyclists.]