[Hong Wu]

Let's look at a list of recent "social justice" issues:
The right for minorities to self-segregate themselves: definitively anti-social.

Promoting censorship and the right to avoid discussing topics at will, even in settings normally reserved for discussion: pretty anti-social behaviour.

Defending the most incompatible aspects of foreign cultures, in doing so perhaps guaranteeing that no integration can happen between the foreign and host culture: thoroughly anti-social, perhaps even as anti-social as someone can get.

I could go on. Other than a desire to be popular with everyone (a natural response for overly-schooled high school kids), social justice seems to be a euphemism for promoting anti-social behaviours (also pretty common among overly-schooled young adults).

We could add in how most of the professors pushing "social justice" teach things like English and communications (they aren't qualified), or how having friends is easy if you're a slut or gay, the pathos of the SJW seems clear.

So there's my question, what's "social" about the things I've listed here? Aren't they all anti-social by definition, or just children doing stupid and desperate things for attention?

[Zagadka]

I believe the stupid concept is having to have social parity, respect, and responsibility by avoiding hurting anyone's feelings.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

Why do "anti-SJW" people constantly strawman the opposition while complaining that racist is used as a cudgel? Either you don't like to generalize or you do, it seems you do.

[Zagadka]

Because SJW people try to derail any critical argument possible.

[LV-GUCCI-PRADA-FLEX]

I don't think many people call themselves social justice warriors. That's why I don't think it's a particularly instructive term.

[foxdemon]

Social justice is interpreted differently by various groups but in the most general sense it can be described as a fair distribution of resources and opportunity. Of course the economic right are included to be critical of the concept since it implies the redistribution of wealth.

In contemporary western societies, the idea of accepting diversity is thrown in. The way the concept of diversity is constructed in the modern west makes social justice exclusionary of working class white males. Proper social justice movements would be expected to have working class males of any ethnic background operating together against entrenched class interests. Since we don't see a lot of this, and that SJWs spend most of their effort targeting a large segment of the working class rather than the financiers and merchants, one is left to draw the conclusion that social justice has been subverted by capitalist interests and has become the exact opposite of what it was supposed to be. Instead of increasing opportunity, it is today an instrument of class oppression.

[Pants-of-dog]

Because SJW people try to derail any critical argument possible.

Maybe, but the criticisms in the OP are not criticisms of actual social justice policies or practices. They are strawmen cooked up in the heads of people who (perhaps willfully) do not understand these policies and practices.

The myth of social justice proponents pointing the finger at white working class people is another of these strawmen.

Like the other thread about this exact thing, this thread is just going to be about imagined slights and other strawmen. The best and most perceptive criticisms of social justice movements come from the people involved in these movements.

[Albert]

Why do "anti-SJW" people constantly strawman the opposition while complaining that racist is used as a cudgel? Either you don't like to generalize or you do, it seems you do.

Oh look an SJW does not like the taste of his own medicine.

[One Degree]

Maybe, but the criticisms in the OP are not criticisms of actual social justice policies or practices. They are strawmen cooked up in the heads of people who (perhaps willfully) do not understand these policies and practices.

I do not believe my objection is a strawman. Basically they invent rights. This says the morality they have decided to support is the only morality the world should adhere to. This violates the very definition of morality.

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
synonyms: ethics, rights and wrongs, ethicality More
a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.

The definition clearly indicates it is dependent upon an individual or group of individuals and therefore can not be a universal right.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Albert,

I bet you cannot come up with an actual example of a social justice movement that makes insulting generalisations about others.

------------

I do not believe my objection is a strawman. Basically they invent rights.

No. They ask that western developed countries actually adhere to the rights that these countries have adopted. Like equality.

This says the morality they have decided to support is the only morality the world should adhere to. This violates the very definition of morality.

Every single ideology ever invented does this. But it is only bad when social justice proponents do it?

The definition clearly indicates it is dependent upon an individual or group of individuals and therefore can not be a universal right.

Then maybe you should be criticising the UN, instead of social justice proponents.

[One Degree]

No. They ask that western developed countries actually adhere to the rights that these countries have adopted. Like equality.

How is this different from demanding your idea of morality be universal? Do you really just ask? Or do you pressure and punish till you get your way?

Every single ideology ever invented does this. But it is only bad when social justice proponents do it?

Simply not true. The only ideologies that do this are those that have global ambitions of domination.

Then maybe you should be criticising the UN, instead of social justice proponents.

Explain the difference to me. The UN is simply a tool to accomplish your goals.

I have now dealt with your strawmen. How do you justify determining what is right and wrong for all people? When you call something a right, that is what you are doing.

[Albert]

I bet you cannot come up with an actual example of a social justice movement that makes insulting generalisations about others.

Gay rights movement that labels normal people as homophobes.

Or no one is illegal groups that labels opposition, aka normal people as xenophobes and racist.

[Pants-of-dog]

How is this different from demanding your idea of morality be universal? Do you really just ask? Or do you pressure and punish till you get your way?

Can you not see the difference between askung a community to adhere to their own moral standards (what social justice proponents do) and violently enforing a global hegemony (i.e. what capitalists do, and what you accuse social justice people of doing)?

Simply not true. The only ideologies that do this are those that have global ambitions of domination.

In that case, then your criticism is misplaces as social justice movements are rarely global in nature. The only exception I know of is global warming.

Explain the difference to me. The UN is simply a tool to accomplish your goals.

Really? Are you now going to blame social justice movements for the actions of the UN? This is so obviously a strawman that I am going to ignore it drom now on.

I have now dealt with your strawmen. How do you justify determining what is right and wrong for all people? When you call something a right, that is what you are doing.

No, I do not believe that all rights are universal. In fact, I do not even think that the western concept of human rights should be universal.

-------------

Gay rights movement that labels normal people as homophobes.

This is not actually happening. You must be confusing your feelings with actual reality.

Or no one is illegal groups that labels opposition, aka normal people as xenophobes and racist.

This is not actually happening. You must be confusing your feelings with actual reality.

[Albert]

This is not actually happening. You must be confusing your feelings with actual reality.

What?

[Pants-of-dog]

@Albert

You think that social justice proponents are calling everyone names if they disagree with social justice proponents. It is not actually happening. You just feel like a victim, even though you are not.

[One Degree]

Can you not see the difference between askung a community to adhere to their own moral standards (what social justice proponents do) and violently enforing a global hegemony (i.e. what capitalists do, and what you accuse social justice people of doing)?

The difference is when social justice proponents advocate on a local level, then they are pursuing their purpose and interests. When they advocate on a national and international level, they become tools of the Capitalists in accomplishing the direct opposite of what they propose. Social Justice for a community makes sense. Social Justice for a nation or a world eliminates all alternative lifestyles.

Furthermore, they never ask a local community to adhere to their own moral standards. Why would such a movement even be necessary. That is nonsensical. Their purpose is to alter the morality and they rarely do it based upon the will of the people.

[Pants-of-dog]

The difference is when social justice proponents advocate on a local level, then they are pursuing their purpose and interests.

Okay.

When they advocate on a national and international level, they become tools of the Capitalists in accomplishing the direct opposite of what they propose. Social Justice for a community makes sense. Social Justice for a nation or a world eliminates all alternative lifestyles.

Amd since this never happens, this is a strawman.

Furthermore, they never ask a local community to adhere to their own moral standards. Why would such a movement even be necessary. That is nonsensical. Their purpose is to alter the morality and they rarely do it based upon the will of the people.

Do you actually believe that all communities adhere perfectly to their moral standards? So, you honestly think that the US has no racism or sexism or classism? That indigenous people are actually treated with respect and treaties are respected?

[Albert]

@Albert

You think that social justice proponents are calling everyone names if they disagree with social justice proponents. It is not actually happening. You just feel like a victim, even though you are not.

Im a victim. Im a victim of SJW oppression. Because I can get socially ostracized, get fired or go to jail if I get denounced as racist, homophobic and a hater.

There is real oppression going on Pants, if you had bot noticed.

[One Degree]

Amd since this never happens, this is a strawman.

You denying a national movement is to irrational to deserve a response.

Do you actually believe that all communities adhere perfectly to their moral standards? So, you honestly think that the US has no racism or sexism or classism? That indigenous people are actually treated with respect and treaties are respected?

These are the standards you are trying to impose. These are not necessarily the standards of every local community. You are projecting your moral opinions as universal, and they are not. That is the problem.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Albert,

That is a different claim than your previous one.

So we now see that you have no evidence for social justice proponents or movements makings insulting generalisations about their opponents.

Moving on to your new claim, yes, there are penalties for anti-social behaviour. But this is not censorship, as you can still say these things. You just cannot say them without dealing with consequences. Are you a victim because you are asked to live with the consequences of what you say? Adulthood is so hard!

-----------

You denying a national movement is to irrational to deserve a response.

Okay, provide an example of a natioanl social justice movement that is trying to impose a right that is not nationally recognised.

These are the standards you are trying to impose. These are not necessarily the standards of every local community. You are projecting your moral opinions as universal, and they are not. That is the problem.

These are the standards of your constitution. If you think that the US should not have to live by the precepts outlined in the constitution, then you have a much bigger problem than social justice proponents.