okay. Yes, you offer a good intuitive answer, but if you say that to a socialist or a social democrat, then you will be accused of engaging in methodological individualism or of being an apologist of the status quo for not seeing the systemic nature of the inequality in question.

I'm not a fan of people moralizing or being negatively judgmental/self-righteous in general, whatever corner it's coming from.

if you say that to a socialist or a social democrat, then you will be accused of engaging in methodological individualism or of being an apologist of the status quo for not seeing the systemic nature of the inequality in question. — Walter Pound

Bo**ocks! This is like me accusing fascists and capitalists of paedophilia, just because they're the people I most disagree with. Please confine yourself to describing what people-like-you think, and leave those with whom you disagree to express their own views.

methodological individualism is hardly equivalent to calling anyone a child molester.

Please confine yourself to describing what people-like-you think, and leave those with whom you disagree to express their own views. — Pattern-chaser

I am repeating how particular leftists and liberals/progressives have responded to that kind of definition of fairness; they view it as inadequate.

I think the OP has more than just “in general” in mind. I think he is talking about a specific phenomenon or movement on the left, “SJW” activists who promote a specific ideological
agenda in a toxic way. Im not sure its as widespread throughout the left as Walter seems to think, but it IS a thing to anyone paying attention. I would even call it dangerous, since it is something being taught in academia.

Right, I'm aware of that and I'm not a fan of it, but I'm just adding/broadening it out to note that I'm not a fan of people moralizing or being negatively judgmental/self-righteous in general. What he's talking about is a problem, but it's just one subset of people moralizing and being negatively judgmental towards others.

I disagree that it is just a subset as you described. Its more than that, if thats all those people were doing they would be much easier to ignore. There is a systematic effort to not only push the agenda but to remove peoples ability to resist it. I dont want to overstate the case, like I said I do believe it to be a minority, but I dont think its overstating to call it facsim with all that entails. Its about social control and it comes from people in positions of power over young minds.

That's not remotely what fascism is. Saying it's not overstating it to call it that is both silly and flipping to the opposite ideological side. There are criticisms of those who make everything subservient to identity but that is not what makes a movement fascistic.

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. — Walter Pound

Indeed those exist. And note how they have done little to nothing alleviate people - even political philosophers - from making a snap judgement that some person or movement are unjust. These theories aren't made.in a vacuum. As with most philosophy they more often have views they believe are roughly correct, and then construct a theory which largely preserves these views.

If a Leninist and a Rawlsian are disputing justice theories they're never going to agree because they have fundamental differences. Their argument will only make this more obvious, meaning they'll still just call the other unjust in the end anyway.

That's not remotely what fascism is. Saying it's not overstating it to call it that is both silly and flipping to the opposite ideological side. There are criticisms of those who make everything subservient to identity but that is not what makes a movement fascistic. — MindForged

I didnt identify what facism is, I just referenced it. You dont have enough information to say whether or not im using the term properly, since I didnt specify what exactly makes them facist.
It is not the opposite idealogical side either, I did not suggest a counter idealogy and again you do not have enough information to actually support your statement. Whats my idealogy?
You also implied that I said or at least think that thinking everything is subservient to identity is facist, which I didnt/dont.
Ill be waiting for you to say something of substance if you care to try again but I wont waste my time correcting another batch of poorly thought out statements/accusations. Sorry im
not here for that, although I have observed others who seem more than willing. Try them.

I didnt identify what facism is, I just referenced it. You dont have enough information to say whether or not im using the term properly, since I didnt specify what exactly makes them facist. — DingoJones

You said that what these SJWs, believe entails fascism:

There is a systematic effort to not only push the agenda but to remove peoples ability to resist it. I dont want to overstate the case, like I said I do believe it to be a minority, but I dont think its overstating to call it facsim with all that entails. Its about social control and it comes from people in positions of power over young minds. — DingoJones

I didn't call you a fascist nor did I identify your political ideology. I said you're overstating the consequences while insisting you aren't overstating it. Fascists are almost uniformly regarded as being of an extreme right wing ideology, where powerful business and industry are pulled into and operate under the auspices of an authoritarian state. Comparing these are very silly. SJWs are, funnily, somewhat minimally left wing because they most often pay attention only to the social arena and economics comes up only inasmuch as it relates to socially discriminatory outcomes. But they are still left wing and thus I don't see how their views entails the contrary of their views unless you elaborate.

You also implied that I said or at least think that thinking everything is subservient to identity is facist, which I didnt/dont. — DingoJones

No I didnt. For all you're complaining you've misrepresented what I said, not the reverse. I was talking about "SJWs" as being people who make everything subservient to identity, not you. I was saying there are good reasons to criticize those people, but not (as you did) to call them or the consequences of their views fascistic.

#me2 and various other manifestations of liberation or outrage emerge when they can emerge. Meaning, #me2 is possible because women have enough security that they can afford to go on the offense. That they have gone overboard in many cases is nothing against the #m32 movement: whenever people build up some momentum they tend to go overboard.

Women's liberation, gay liberation, Unionism, abolition, temperance, women's suffrage, etc. are all examples of movements emerging when economic and political circumstances allowed for these movements to develop. (Note: Sometimes economic and political factors caused these movements, other times they just opened the door.

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. — Walter Pound

Many rightists join leftists in calling for racial, economic, and social justice.