Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE, today »

Is 'Social Justice' Really Just A Ruse?

I get why a lot of people want to stand up for people and the environment etc. but is the modern way and type of 'Social Justice' really just a ruse/con?

You've only got to look online at 'SJW's' to see examples of how angry and narcissistic these people have become in the name of defending what they see as cause which needs attention. Great that they feel passionate about something, but why then the extreme anger and also at times the inability to defend their viewpoint without going apoplectic?

All this rage and vein-bulging sycophancy surely cannot be good for the heart.

The more I see of this type of behaviour, the more I can't help but feel that these people are being conned. They are certainly passionate about their arguments, but who is teaching them that there is only one viewpoint and one way of solving issues? Also, how can they be sure that their way is right - or should that not be questioned?

Things like racism, homophobia, disability rights etc. can be solved (hopefully) through different ways and means - talking with 'offenders' and educating them, perhaps even helping offenders overcome wrong/negative stereotypes about people rather than hating and brow-beating on any person deemed 'racist' or 'homophobic' could be a better way of encouraging change rather than demanding on line that 'all racists/homophobes must die'. Newsflash: They won't die just because you say so, and using death threats makes your argument null and void.

So why is it a Ruse, in my opinion?

* The 'Right' knows that the 'Left' will never accept it or its policies

* Young people are more likely to vote 'Left' than 'Right', so the 'Right' need to change this in order to retain control

* The 'Right' needs to split up the 'Left' and so it champions 'Social Justice' under all the trappings of Liberalism.

* This then splits the 'Left' between traditional Socialists and modernist Liberals. Neither side now gets on, and the traditional Socialists now feel isolated from the 'Left'. As society gets ever more Liberal they feel attracted more towards the 'Right' than the now mad and zany 'Left'. Hence, the 'Right' continue to stay in power.

Has racism been solved by modern Social Justice? No.
Has homophobia been solved by modern Social Justice? No.

Are people fed up with being lectured to about how 'shitty' they are for not falling in line with Social Justice teachings? Yes.

Could the movement ultimately do more harm than good, if people stop caring about Social Justice? Possibly.

As Big Country once commented in the song 'One Great Thing'

"Talk will come to nothing while the shouting still goes on."
BlueMetalChick · 26-30, F
Social justice started out as an effort to locate the groups in society who were treated the least appropriate and then mitigate those situations. It's turned into a cluster fuck of people trying to compete for the title of "most oppressed" now. And it's given everyone, the rightists, the leftists, the centrists, the straights, the gays, the Whites, the Blacks, the young, the old, and everything in between, a massive victim complex. I don't care how much a person sees eye-to-eye with me or how dissimilar their opinions are, if they intentionally try to paint themselves as a repressed minority not because they are but rather because they wanna be regarded as some kind of selfless courageous hero who isn't afraid to stand up to "the system", I will hound them day and night to remind them that they are as full of shit as they can possibly be.
Miram · 31-35, F
Social justice is political issue but it shouldn't be. Both parties should care about justice like in the past.

People are always emotional when it comes to matters that [b]hurt[/b] them and affect their well-being. The left are often just as emotional.

Even emotional arguments can be used to make positive changes. Not all truth can be approached strictly through logic.

Anger is present in every mass social change.
People have a strong need to identify with things larger than themselves. That's particularly the case when people feel dis-empowered about issues that matter to them.

SJW is really no different than mainstream politics these days. People throwing their small broken identities into movements with the hope of being part of something in which they matter, to help create a world in which they matter.

That is why SJW and politics are both all-in with no space for dissenting views. Dissenting views risk annihilating people's identities. And this is why they are so nasty and acerbic.

In part this is why more and more people are doing their own social justice work outside of SJW groups, and why people are turning their backs on this whole worn out right-left political spectrum. It is outside their personal experience and identity.
Sicarium · 41-45, M
It's not a ruse, it's the opposite of justice and an attempt at forcing equal outcomes by authoritarians who have bought into a collectivist ideology that reduces everyone to nothing more than their assign identity group. It's an intentional lie.

Your analysis is flawed in that the right has nothing to do with it beyond a few fringe groups that are now demanding their own white identity group because they've bought into the same cancerous ideology. The right certainly had nothing to do with the creation of social justice; neither did liberals, not true liberals. Social justice is by it's very nature anti-liberal. Also, SJWs aren't socialists. They're progressives. Socialists apply their collectivist groups by income. Progressives do it by social and cultural groups, hence why some use the term "cultural Marxists." It's not entirely accurate, but not entirely wrong either.
BookOfSouls85 · 36-40, M
@Sicarium Sounds fair, many thanks for your thoughts Sicarium.

The reason I said 'started by the right' was because there is a term used by the Frankfurt School to explain affecting the outcome on one side so that it benefits you.

As an example:

[i]A is in love with B, but C wants to date B and can't stand A[/i]

[i]D then hires E to wreck the relationship between A & B[/i]

[i]In the end, A & B break up and C then gets to date B. C has used nefarious means but ultimately C has won.[/i]
Sicarium · 41-45, M
@BookOfSouls85 The Frankfurt School was never Right. It was a hotbed of collectivism in one form or another.
ajsk13 · 51-55, M
When it's NOT your idea, it's someone Else's following their lead is just being used ,that not social justice just socialism
BookOfSouls85 · 36-40, M
purplepen · 51-55, F

Post Comment
18,049 people following
Personal Stories, Advice, and Support
New Post
Associated Forums Topic Members