“Justice” versus “Social Justice”

Written by John (the other John).

The difference between “justice” and “social justice” is best demonstrated not by how they are supposedly defined (as they are both undefinable in any absolute manner), but instead by their respective penumbras from their own characteristics and traits (i.e., judge them not by their words, but rather by their deeds); the most significant one being the extent of how they allow critique and analysis of themselves.

As a starting point, “justice” (since the days of antiquity in Plato’s Republic) was/is openly debated and evaluated by both proponents and opponents and skeptics, whilst “social justice” today forbids debate and evaluation by its opponents and skeptics. Stated differently, “justice” does not merely allow open discourse and dialogue, it goes further and affirmatively encourages it (although it does not mandate it); whilst “social justice” does not merely disallow it, nor does it merely discourage it, nor does it merely prohibit any form of debate, critique, or skepticism, nor does it merely mandate affirmation of it, but rather it takes the further step of mandating the enthusiastically gleeful celebration of it by all people under threat of punishment and/or violence (to include job loss, economic ruin, expulsion from University or the general society, assault, etc…) [1] [2]

Why you may ask does it ban debate and mandate subservient unquestioned loyalty?

Because it is concealing the fact that “social justice” is a fraud. [3] [4]

***

1. To include compliance with all of its rituals and to evangelize its scriptures.

2 Any celebration deemed to being illegitimate or not sufficiently celebratory is cause for punishment. The point being is that this celebration needs to reach the point of being climactically orgasmic. (Elaine Benes from Seinfeld is only one of few people who could “fake it”, but most people cannot).

3 The very same analysis is applicable when comparing:

a). “equal protection” to “equity” (i.e., people are protected equally under the law versus identity preferences); or

b). “homogeneity” to “diversity (i.e., having similarities is a strength versus having differences is a strength); or

c). “merit” to “inclusion” (i.e., rewarding the worthy versus rewarding the unworthy).

4. The question remains, do the proponents of all of the latter ideas allow critique, disallow critique, outlaw critique, mandate obedience, or mandate celebration of them? You guessed it. The greater the fraud, the greater the retribution in the effort to conceal the fraud (whether as a preventative measure or as a punitive measure).

Simply put:

a). these people can never be wrong,

b). all others must obey, and

c). any dissenters are evil who must be destroyed.

4 Another distinction is as follows:

- Justice- fights for the equal rights/protection for all people

- Social justice- fights to violate the rights of unfavoured people based on identity and/or beliefs