The Gimme Game
Old-fashioned Marxism in a new set of clothes
Social Justice is the modern Marxist's tool to turn the American society upon itself. It is rooted in exploiting one of humankind's greatest weaknesses -- envy. It exists-- ostensibly -- to correct for unequal social outcomes, but it doesn't. It replaces one set of problems with another, far worse, set of problems. Social Justice is rooted in the belief that history and life are nothing more than a perpetual battle between the "oppressed" and the "oppressors."
There are three players in the Social Justice game -- the "oppressor," the "oppressed," and the "deciders."
The "oppressor" group consists primarily of traditional Americans. They come in all races and colors, but, for convenience sake are identified as, "white supremacists," or Joe Biden's favorite, "domestic extremists."
The "oppressed"come in all races and colors too, but they have additional characteristics that make them special. They are members of the Alphabet People -- the LGBTQXYZ people. The Alphabet people sit atop the "oppressed" hierarchy -- this is the year of the Alphabet People.
Another "oppressed" group are POCs -- the "people of color." Ignoring the obvious fact that all people have color, POC has become the favored WOKE reference to African-Americans. POCs used to be the most-favored group, but have slipped to second place. Hispanics are also considered POCs, but viewed with suspicion because of that Roman Catholic stuff. South Asians, Arabs, Persians, and Pacific Islanders are POCs, but Asians from China, Korea and Japan are not POCs. Black, homosexual, drag queens are at the top of the "oppressed" scale and highly valued at social events.
The "oppressor" groups and "oppressed" groups are identified by Social Justice advocates, who are referred to as "Social Justice Warriors." It sounds better than communist, or socialist, or progressive. The "deciders" exploit the "never ending battle between 'the oppressed' and 'the oppressor'," for power, wealth, fame, and chicks.
It is not known how one becomes a Social Justice Warrior. They kind of -- well, they just are.
Larry Elders introduces us to one. His name is Ibram X. Kendi. Kendi is a Boston University racial studies professor. He's the big duke of the Social Justice scene these days, and he is one really deep dude -- who thinks really deep thoughts.
The concept of Social Justice grew out of academia's racial and gender studies programs populated by folks like Kendi. There is little academic rigor involved, no peer review outside of a closed circle of the like-minded -- and all of it is based on unchallenged assumptions and pronouncements. It's the same old, "from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs," commie bullsh!t dressed up in academic polysyllables.
Bottom line -- Social Justice is concerned with the equal distribution of resources (distributive justice), rather than the equal treatment of individuals (procedural justice). It is contrary to everything American, to safeguarding the rights of the individual. Social Justice authorizes its "oppressed" groups to take whatever it "needs" from the "oppressor" group.
The really neat thing about Social Justice is, that it's always what its advocates say it is. It is never what its critics say it is, but this simple fact remains -- the primary objective of Social Justice is to control social and economic outcomes, not to safeguard individual rights and liberties.
Social Justice wants sameness. Social Justice hates the individual and individuality. The Social Justice Warrior can't fit you nicely into one of their little boxes when everybody is going around being an individual.
Social Justice is compatible with gender quotas, Affirmative Action and other forms of discrimination based on group membership. Justice, however, implies impartiality and non-discrimination, as symbolized by Lady Justice’s blindfold.
People differ in a myriad of ways, we have no reason to expect equal outcomes. Equal opportunity -- the absence of arbitrary discrimination -- does not imply equal probability. Yet, groups that are, on average, better off than others are routinely accused of being privileged.
The idea of privilege -- that certain groups in society benefit from an unfair advantage -- is central to Social Justice. The basic premise is that, in order to create a just society, those who have privilege must be stripped of it. However, once a group has been labeled "privileged" (based on its performance), the distinction between privilege and achievement becomes blurred. If history is any indication, this is a recipe for disaster.
Social Justice defines fairness in terms of outcomes, rather than processes, the implication being that the end justifies the means. Whether the goal is equality (of outcome) or diversity (of identity), the individual is just a pawn in the game of Social Justice: a means to an end rather than an end in itself. In short, Social Justice is not justice. The future of liberal democracy depends on our ability to tell the two apart.