slug.com slug.com
26 10

Would you say that the IDW is for "social justice" but not for the warrior part of "social justice warriors"? That is, we are for people being treated fairly and respectfully but not for people being attacked by social justice vigilante groups if they are not pure enough in their belief. What does "social justice" mean to you?

This came from a video by Eric Weinstein (+ David Fuller) in "Anyone been following the debates over Uri Harris's trilogy in Quillette?" ... posted by @Dero, the author of "POLITIKOS: The Intellectual Dark Web vs. The New York Times" [amazon.com]

Admin 8 May 12
Share
You must be a member of this group before commenting. Join Group

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

26 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

14

Justice doesn't need a modifier.

Wishing I'd commented something so pithy, concise, and true.

@Whistle_Pig I do ok every once in awhile.

8

“Social justice” is a euphemism — like civil rights and welfare and Social Security — used as a money grab and a power grab. It’s not about justice. It’s about power and who has it. For the left, it’s an attempt to psychologically cripple the confident and productive individuals in a society to make them bend to a socialist power structure.

Real justice is about finding an prosecuting those who actually violate the individual rights of others to their body, their property and their money.

Yandarn Level 7 May 12, 2019

I would not categorize Civil Rights with the euphemistic "social justice" - note the upper case in Civil Rights and the lower case in "social justice".

Seems to me that "civil rights" is about a specific slice of our civil rights. One of those vocab terms that has been kidnapped for the purpose of expanding and proliferating for a specific group those rights that should be available to all citizens of a nation, state, or other legislated body.

Civil rights do not exist. Only individual rights exist.

The fuzzy, false civil rights moniker has been used to espouse the welfare state and affirmative-action, among other reprehensible actions, including the modern attempt to give money to relatives of slaves from 150 years ago.

The so-called civil rights movement of the 1960s was actually an individual rights movement, quite effective, but it was given the civil rights moniker by ignorant media and politicians who do not understand individual rights and have used the moniker to forward their own agenda for 50 years.

6

I think most of the people here are for constitutional justice...Social justice is just a way of saying that you are temporarily butt-hurt about some hip topic and you want someone to label who should be the victim, and who should suffer shame and punishment. SJWs are just impatient vigilantes fueled by progressive principles (can't call them morals) and a false sense of entitlement.
The judicial system, whether local, state, or federal, doesn't always get it right but it is our system of justice. We are not each other's judge/jury/executioner.

5

Social justice is VERY different from all that's implied by the term social justice warrior. Social justice was appropriated and weaponized from reason and compassion by the radical left (standard operating procedure these days). This goes back to a Jordan Peterson point. It's pretty clear when the right goes too far. That boundary is well demarcated. It has been less clear what to call it when the left goes too far or what to call the left that goes too far. Social Justice Warrior is just one of the attempts to label the radical left. The Social Justice Warrior is a harmful, hateful ideology of weaponizing EVERYTHING against the non-radical-left. I've decided myself to use 'radical left' as my label for this conversation. I think it's less confusing because it's not layered in positive, socially responsible ideas that have been appropriated for nefarious purposes. Political correctness, social justice--these kinds of ideas are actually good things. Sadly, the radical left has completely closed down those conversations by weaponizing them for immediate political gratification--power and control over any who would oppose them. I literally have no respect for the radical left. They are the KKK to me. In fact, I'd argue the radical left is simply the KKK reinvented. Hate's hate, and the radical left is full of it--it's seeping from their pores. They actually don't deserve to be labeled with terms that imply inherent good--like political correctness or social justice. The radical left is NOT about social justice or political correctness. They're the opposite. They're a group of bigots hiding behind good, and their intention is to oppress.

I think it's dangerous to try to push an agenda for the IDW. The loose association is not based on partisan tribes, and I'm not sure it's advantageous to try to derive a new party from it. Reason itself is not a political party. Neither is compassion (despite what the radical left is selling). Part of the IDW's power is it's freedom to fluidly flow in and out of ideas without a partisan agenda. IDW can't avoid politics. It will always be tangentially linked to philosophy, psychology, sociology, economy, religion--pretty much every human thing. Though politics is always a factor it's NOT what the IDW is about--IN MY OPINION.

chuckpo Level 8 May 13, 2019
5

No, to put it simply in response to the initial question. I am for Justice, which needs no modifier; I am for Liberty, which needs no modifier; I am for Speech (and freedom of), which needs no modifier. I consider myself an American, with no modifier. I have not seen the video referenced and cannot comment on its merits.
Justice is equal treatment under law. Social Justice is an aberration of Justice giving special treatment by virtue of one's membership in an intersectional hierarchy.

John_G Level 6 May 13, 2019
5

The IDW community should stay away from social justice in any disguise and stick with combating authoritarianism/totalitarianism in all its forms.

Freedom of conscience, speech, press or media should be our focus.

Chicago Level 8 May 12, 2019
5

No - I would not say that. It is my belief that IDW is a platform for free thinking and open dialogue which are tools or methods by which we hope to find and distinguish those things that are good, bad, evil, irrational, unreasonable, reasonable etc. In the first place the terminology "social justice" is all but completely meaningless. It is at best ambiguous. It really opens a pathway for acceptance of something called epistemological relativism. Which is to say that from the very outset we disregard things, ideas, facts really as having any meaningful qualities. No good, no bad no objective measure of the evident or observable value of good, bad etc. I believe in order to have any hope for meaningful (productive) examination of ideas we must begin with the acknowledgement of the existence of things as either good or bad. From this premise we can go forward with argument over the why and the how things are good or bad. Without this there is no hope for progress.
Coincidentally I had just finished watching this video which I believe address the very thing I am discussing in response to your question: I will place the link here: It's only 13 minutes long but well worth the investment of time to watch.

iThink Level 9 May 12, 2019
4

I have seen groups that claim to be SJW who want to attack the liberals & snow flakes and then there are other groups that are the exact opposite who want to attack CONSERTATIVES, Christians and anyone who doesn't agree with their narrative. SJW is a made up term that is being used to weaponize and to silence others beliefs and opinions. It is a term that I myself find to be horrible.

AZWoman Level 7 May 12, 2019

Some good points here. Where it goes off the rails, imo ... when equivocation enters into it. SJW is well rooted on one side of the political spectrum.

This type of equivocating, attemptiing to project "fairness" and balance where there is little or none, strikes me as a weapon in itself. The tactic is a left-handed, indirect attempt to minimize an issue for one side by adding it without cause or evidence, to the other.

4

I'd say IDW is for just good old fashioned justice across the board, and definitely minus the political correctness. Can't say I believe in "social justice", just fairness and equality for all (aka, type of justice I mentioned above).

4

I wonder if we're not reexamining the differences between Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau...We're renegotiating the social contract, on one level, and reevaluating the merits of appealing to (and imposing) authority. I think we're in a contest to set about determining where philosophy made its wrong turn. I think it might have been the left at Albuquerque; it just feels right given the Loony Tunes we're dealing with.

govols Level 8 May 12, 2019

Admin that was an acceptable way to explain "social justice" and it seems the government in the beginning of the U.S.A. followed that to get the new society productively motivated.

4

No. Social Justice is a contrivance. Mostly used to de-legitimize a political status quo and make demands from it. You may want to rebrand the idea as something else. Equal Opportunity in real time...to speak, learn, work based on skills is the best we can hope for. If you look to right a past sin for a dead generation you have gone beyond where God tries to travel!

3

I think IDW is about Justice..... and stands against:
Social Justice, Identity Politics, political correctness, the concept of culture appropriations, and this leftist rotgut.

SeanT Level 5 May 13, 2019
3

A proposed corollary: is the IDW for cultural warfare and what does culture warrior mean to you?

3

"Local or Federal: Best Way to Fix Americas Ills" Group

From what i've seen so far, the IDW seems to be more about discussion & right thinking. Not in terms of right vs left, but getting it right, whatever IT is. So much less rhetoric here that one can breath, which in my opinion opens the mind instead of preparing it for battle.

TommyB Level 7 May 13, 2019
3

Thanks for the post (and plug!) Admin. I take it your Q comes from Eric's response to what David says from 10:30 in the video: Uri Harris follows Ezra Klein in defining 'new left' and 'new right' as those respectively for, and against, 'Social Justice.' Given what that term refers to, the IDWers all line up as 'new right,' and thus aren't, Uri argues, truly politically diverse.

Eric responds (11:22): "This is very mysterious. I think a lot of us have traditionally had a very positive view of social justice.'

I recommend using captials, "Social Justice," for what we're referring to (= chuckpo's "radical left" in his comment): the cultural and political program one finds on display in academia and in some mainstream news organizations. One can thus say, as Eric wants to, that he is passionately for social justice, whilst passionately against Social Justice.

There are big philosophical disputes to be had about social justice, and even when limiting it to issues over racial and gender group differences (somewhat 'identity politics' stuff), I think we're all happy to at least have those discussions - so long as those we're engaging are 'following the rules of discourse' (Eric). No doubt at least some IDWers, esp. the Weinsteins, will say there's much to do and concede on such scores. And on such issues, there's no reason to think of the IDW as monolithic - they're likely to be politically diverse.

But the entire IDW is as one in lining up against (w/ caps) Social Justice: the entire IDW lines up as 'new right'. This is an opposition to the methods being used by a certain left-wing faction that has graduated leftist college and taken up employment in administrations and newspapers throughout the West. It's most obviously marked by what to the rest of us is clearly an overuse of the slime-terms, 'racist,' 'sexist,' 'homophobe,' 'transphobe,' and 'Islamophobe'. It's focused on deplatforming and firing for the expression of views, rather than what we'd prefer, them offering us reasons why they think those views false.

For mine, what's essential to IDW is (1) a perception that much of left has moved left, abandoned liberal values, and taken intersectionality / oppression hierarchies as much more central to its thinking - has adopted Social Justice - and (2) a judgment that this is regressive and dangerous, and that we need take the cultural and political wheel off these people to save the republic.

The IDW's central task, I think, is to make more people aware of this development on the left, and to realize its dangers. The IDW owes its success, I think, to the fact that it has given voice to an inkling many had that things were so.

My response to Uri's first article, in case anyone's interested: [medium.com]. I'm working on another.

Dero Level 4 May 13, 2019
3

I see social justice as an acknowlegement that not all individuals have the same needs and the same opportunities; and so battling for social justice a way to address that. It's not about privileges. It's about incentives. (My personal view).

As for 'warrior' I strongly dislike the label. Such label is a just a way to caricature, mock and demean people passionate about what they are campaigning for, by people who disagree with such campaigns. It's like 'snowflakes' and other name calling: a sign of disrespect and stupidity. Debate, challenge, argue, but don't insult. Plus, the term could be applied to anyone: are gun supporters defining themselves as social justice warriors for claiming carrying guns should remain a right?... Such terms are politically charged (biased in a demeaning way) and so have no place in the IDW - a community supposedly made of intelligent people, fleeing mainstream Manicheism... (Again: my personal view).

3

Judging from the comments, there aren't many IDW-identifying individuals who support social justice. Of those who do, I'd love to see what they think it means and not just what they think it doesn't mean.

2

Yes, from my view of the IDW, I would agree we stand for social justice, but not extreme social justicing (people being attacked for differing beliefs).
This topic comes down to respect. How much do we respect ourselves, first. Then how much do we respect others.
In the past, people would put on nice clothes to run errands, go to the grocery store, walk to the mailbox to get the mail. When generations of people started wearing pajamas out of their houses, it was just an indicator that self respect plummeted. Therefore, respect of others was on the decline as well.
As far as social justice goes... yeah, justice is what we want. But when dealing with society, it’s like a jar of mixed nuts. Lots of crappy peanuts you don’t want, and a few different kinds of great nuts.
The loud and disrespectful take the stage since we’re just more respectful.

2

No. There is no such thing as a social justice in the first place. You will always find someone who somehow feels mistreated. Justice by itself is very difficult to describe. Do you think that the law is fair? What about revange? Or the mob mentality? Social Justice is a political term ment to create division. Who are you going to blame for being born in your country, with that and not the other material status, in this particular time and space. Who?... God? Well good luck!

LukeGP Level 7 May 12, 2019
1

I would hope IDW would avoid this “epithet” altogether in whatever form it is presented.
Either there IS a Free Flow of Ideas and Opinions ... or there IS NOT.
I’m not sure I even like the term “Justice” for that itself is variable and open to interpretation.
Adding any Qualifier indicates an even larger amount of variability.
Using a term such as “Justice” ... an undefinable concept is not logical ... adding a Qualifier makes it even less logical.

1

No individual thoughts ideas and exchange site I prefer, when you start the collective anything you get loss of individual everything that brings so much more to the conversation

1

Just for a different view, explain the words "social justice" and it would seem "social" meaning society or group and "justice" meaning fair or equal, so we do have social justice with a variant of fairness depending upon which group it's in. Now "fair" would depend on an educational environment. It does appear IDW is finding it's variant for "social justice"

1

There is a lot of commentary here about where to aim the IDW cannon, as if the community had but one cannon. Injustice comes in many forms, and so the IDW response should be fluid, malleable, calculated. Besides, who does not reasonably view the IDW as a kind of review board, that analyzes the progress made thus far, and occasionally requests an amendment/shoots it in the foot? I do think the IDW would be better off wrangling social justice, and re-nurture it with empathy and understanding into a weapon against the irrational. How will the IDW fair against society’s biggest threats without “Social Justice 2.0” on its side?

0

The idea of "social justice" has been weaponized by leftists in an effort to silence people they don't agree with. The only justice needed in America is legal justice that prosecutes those who violate the rights of others. All Americans should have equal opportunity for success or failure based on what decisions they make in life. For a government to give unfair advantages or disadvantages to any person based on their race, religion, or gender is wrong.

0

Solutions to social injustice always seem to cost middle class taxpayers more in the end. How about justice for those who work for a living? The middle class has fled Venezuela, California, Illinois and any other place with outrageous government spending.

Write Comment

Recent Visitors 96

Photos 127 More

Posted by Admin Does teaching "white guilt" also cultivate a "white pride" backlash?

Posted by Admin Is it time to take a knee on the Superbowl?

Posted by Admin Why not equality right now?

Posted by Admin How's Biden doing?

Posted by Admin How many good friends do you have from other political tribes?

Posted by Admin What did Trump do, if anything, to incite violence?

Posted by Admin Is free speech dead?

Posted by Admin Is free speech dead?

Posted by Admin Is free speech dead?

Posted by Admin Under what time and circumstance is the use of violence warranted?

Posted by Admin Now what?

Posted by Admin What do you expect to be achieved by this week's pro-Trump DC rally?

Posted by Admin What did you learn in 2020?

Posted by Admin Should pedophiles be allowed to have "child" sex robots?

Posted by Admin Do you have a "line in the sand" regarding political or social change?

Posted by Admin Should big tech firms hire more Blacks and Hispanics?

  • Top tags#video #media #racist #world #biden #truth #government #liberal #racism #democrats #conservatives #society #politics #community #youtube #justice #IDW #hope #friends #videos #Identity #FreeSpeech #Google #book #policy #vote #Police #conservative #evidence #culture #violence #reason #economic #USA #liberals #tech #Socialmedia #money #god #guns #gender #whites #campaign #population #laws #religion #TheTruth #equality #democrat #Christian ...

    Members 9,848Top

    Moderator