 |
|
RE: not really
Posted on: January 25, 2019 at 13:01:14 CT
ummmm MU
Posts:
44902
Member For:
13.46 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
"People can be victims without other people necessarily being responsible and there's certainly more options than A and B."
This sentence would have far more meaning if there were any good examples of social justice causes that didn't have a roughly defined bad actor on the other end (white males, the patriarchy, whiteness, white privilege, the 1%, frat rape culture, etc.).
Can you point to an example of a social justice movement which doesn't point to collective cause of the social ill?
"Downplaying actual victims of society through silly word games doesn't make people on the opposite end of the spectrum innocent or guilty. It does make you personally look out of touch."
This isn't a silly word game. This is a discussion about how to properly see something as important as "justice" in a world of trillions of interpersonal human interactions.
I maintain that when you fail to see justice at an individual level, you're no longer seeking justice. Justice requires holding liable people accountable for their own actions, not the actions of people who look like them or share some other roughly similar characteristic. If you get away from this bedrock principle, you're prone to hold non-bad actors liable and inevitably you're just going to divide people and lead to witch hunts. The witch hunts, strangely enough, cause real life individual justice-based victims.
For that matter, I think the premise of individual justice is universally applicable.
Edited by ummmm at 13:04:07 on 01/25/19
This sentence would have far more meaning if there were any good examples of social justice causes that didn't have a roughly defined bad actor on the other end (white males, the patriarchy, whiteness, white privilege, the 1%, frat rape culture, etc.).
Can you point to an example of a social justice movement which doesn't point to collective cause of the social ill?
"Downplaying actual victims of society through silly word games doesn't make people on the opposite end of the spectrum innocent or guilty. It does make you personally look out of touch."
This isn't a silly word game. This is a discussion about how to properly see something as important as "justice" in a world of trillions of interpersonal human interactions.
I maintain that when you fail to see justice at an individual level, you're no longer seeking justice. Justice requires holding liable people accountable for their own actions, not the actions of people who look like them or share some other roughly similar characteristic. If you get away from this bedrock principle, you're prone to hold non-bad actors liable and inevitably you're just going to divide people and lead to witch hunts. The witch hunts, strangely enough, cause real life individual justice-based victims.
For that matter, I think the premise of individual justice is universally applicable.
Edited by ummmm at 13:04:07 on 01/25/19
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
RE: not really - ummmm MU - 1/25 13:01:14