"Americans finally saw with their own eyes what social justice looks like."

Daniel J. Flynn writes in part in the American Spectator,

...Socialism saw its representation in the sickle and hammer. Social justice finds its symbol in a plodding man in trousers that do not cover his rear but a bandana that obscures his face carrying a PlayStation 4 under his left arm and three boxes of Nike Lebron Soldier 13s under his right.

...Social, when used as a noun, serves as one of the most pleasant words in the English language. Think: the ice-cream social. When used as an adjective, critics say it can turn a fine profession into a despised one (social engineering), the best subject (history) in school into the worst one (social studies), a phrase, as noted troglodyte R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. points out, into an oxymoron (social distancing), and a solid noun into mush (social justice).

That’s why this weekend served as a prolonged teachable moment. Americans finally saw with their own eyes what social justice looks like.

Read more here.

"Social justice is often at odds with both truth and justice."

Women now dominate almost all courses of study at our colleges. Is that systemic sexism?

Did you know we all start off as girls? Some of us, though, have a Y chromosome that kicks in triggering testosterone, which changes our genitals and our brains.

Is it logical to say, "Until women are 50% of everything, that's sexism? does disparity equal causation? Correlation does not imply causation. Disparate outcomes do not imply disparate treatment.

Social Justice

Thanks to The Atheist Conservative

Social justice bullies

Aristotelis Orginos writes in Medium that

...if history is read as a book, the supporters of social justice are typically deemed the heroes, the opponents of it the villains.

However, Orginos notes that today's social justice warriors

have warped an admirable cause for social, economic, and political equality into a socially authoritarian movement that has divided and dehumanized individuals on the basis of an insular ideology guised as academic theory. The modern social justice movement launched on Twitter, Tumblr, Facebook, Jezebel, Slate, Huffington Post, et al. is far more reminiscent of a Red Scare (pick one) than the Civil Rights Movement.

... In order to uphold the sanctity of this viewpoint, adherents ostracize dissension. It’s nothing new — it’s a tactic as old as religion itself. Instead of holy texts, though, the millennial social justice advocate bows at the altar of the currently-in-vogue ideological Trinity: Marxism, Feminism, and Post-Colonialism.

...Let’s talk about racism. The mantra of the movement is thus: It is impossible to be racist against white people because racism is the equivalent of prejudice and power. Since white people have social and economic institutional power and privilege (in America), those who are racially oppressed cannot be racist toward whites since those who are racially oppressed do not have power.

...A millennial social justice advocate can discount an opinion simply because it is said or written by a group they feel oppresses them. It is a logical fallacy known as ad hominem whereby one attacks the person saying an argument rather than the argument itself. But this logical fallacy has become the primary weapon of the millennial social justice advocate. It is miasma to academia, to critical thinking, and to intellectual honesty. Yet it is the primary mode of operating on college campuses nationwide.

...The version of millennial social justice advocacy that I have spoken about — one that uses Identity Politics to balkanize groups of people, engenders hatred between groups, willingly lies to push agendas, manipulates language to provide immunity from criticism, and that publicly shames anyone who remotely speaks some sort of dissent from the overarching narrative of the orthodoxy — is not admirable. It is deplorable. It appeals to the basest of human instincts: fear and hatred. It is not an enlightened or educated position to take. History will not look kindly on this Orwellian, authoritarian pervision of social justice that has taken social media and millennials by storm over the past few years.

But the fact of the matter is — anyone unwilling to engage in productive, open, mutually critical conversations with people they disagree with under the moral protection of liberalism and social justice are not liberals, are not social justice advocates, and are not social justice warriors; they are social justice bullies.

Read more here.

What is "Social Justice?"

Is Social Justice" a mirage (Hayek) or is it a Trojan horse (Jonah Goldberg), concealing a much more radical agenda? Goldberg asserts that

"Social Justice" is a profoundly ideological term, masquerading as a generic term for goodness.

This has been the primary disguise of liberalism ever since: "We're not ideologues, we're pragmatists! And if only you crazy ideologues" — "market fundamentalists," "right-wingers," "zealots," "dogmatists," etc. — "would just get out of the way and let us do what all smart people agree is the smart thing to do, we could fix all the problems facing us today."

The subtext is always clear: People who disagree with liberalism do so because they are deranged, brainwashed, corrupt, selfish, or stupid.

According to Jonah Goldberg,

if the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist, the greatest trick liberals ever pulled was convincing themselves they’re not ideological.

Today, “objective” journalists, academics, and “moderate” politicians peddle some of the most radical arguments by hiding them in homespun apho­risms. Barack Obama casts himself as a disciple of reason: He’s a pragmatist, opposed to the ideology and drama of the Right, solely concerned with “what works.” And today’s liberals follow his lead, spouting countless clichés such as:

One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter: Sure, if the other man is an idiot. Was Martin Luther King Jr. a terrorist? Was Bin Laden a freedom fighter?
Violence never solves anything: Really? It solved our problems with King George III and ended slavery.
We need complete separation of church and state: In other words, all expressions of faith should be barred from politics . . . except when they support liberal programs.

With humor and passion, Goldberg dismantles these and many other Trojan horses that liberals use to cheat in the war of ideas. He shows that the Pro­gressive tradition of denying an ideological agenda while pursuing it vigorously under the false flag of reasonableness is alive and well. And he reveals how this dangerous game may lead us further down the path of self-destruction.

Beware what is done in the name of social justice

I found the video here.