Lol, "social justice?" More like "socialist justice." I want to state for everyone that I now disagree with this point of view but I’m going to leave this here to remind me that my opinion will never stop changing and never likely be correct
Social Justice = Liberal Fascism "State is the name of the coldest of all icy monsters. Coldly it tells lies, and this lie crawls from its mouth: 'I, the State, am the people.' That is a lie for it was creators who made peoples and who hung a faith and a love over them, thus they served life!" _Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, On the New Idol
Edgar Coapman No. Nietzsche hated anti-Semites and nationalists, so its fair to say he would have seen the Nazis as the lowest. Did the Nazis use Nietzsche as a poster boy? Yes. Does that mean he was a proto-Nazi? No. However his sister, Elizabeth Nietzsche, who inherited his estate, was and pushed her own agenda. "Anti-Semitism: a symptom of the bungled and the botched."_Nietzsche "The Jews are the most remarkable people in the history of the world."_Nietzsche
Mark Wright I've never read Hayak. Nietzsche just happens to be a near and dear philosopher to me so I just used that quote somewhat arbitrarily, and not as a really well-read intellectual ball of fire. You could try reading Nietzsche but his philosophy isn't for everyone. The only other philosopher he most gets compared to is Ayn Rand, even though they both have a lot of differences, so he's somewhat natural for some libertarian-conservative minded people like myself. However, Jonah Goldberg himself doesn't like Nietzsche and cited him as one of the philosophers used by the people he damns in his book, Liberal Fascism. If you wanted to read him, though, I'd suggest starting with Beyond Good and Evil or the Genealogy of Morals.
my nama jef Social justice has turned into cancer Feminism is cancer. It’s about giving women rights to be equal to men. Also, if it’s for both genders (which it’s not), then change the name of it. Egalitarianism is better, it’s for both genders. Black lives matter? All lives matter! What about other “unprivileged minorities?” What about whites? Fat acceptance? Obesity is unhealthy, you can’t change the facts. Also, “thin privilege?” We often take care of ourselves. Pride parades are hypersexualized, flamboyant, and harmful. You people must want people to hate us. “Privileged straight white male?” Do you want a new era of racism, homophobia, and sexism? That makes many do. Social justice isn’t bravery anymore. We already have our rights. Discrimination will never end no matter what, you’re “beating on a dead horse” This is coming from a gay male, so I’m not being hypocritical.
Ben Shapiro said it best: (paraphrase) "the words 'justice' and 'correctness' are already pure words that don't need anything added to them. So if you add to them 'social' and 'political', you imply that justice and correctness were never enough, and that injustice is greater than justice.
"Pure" words? What are you going on about? Social justice isn't trying to imply that Justice itself isn't "enough." Just like criminal justice doesn't. They're all just concepts that make up the idea of "Justice." It's not that one is different from the other, it's that they're part of a larger concept.
@Nelson's Rudolph "Everyone i dont like is a racist" Such baby mentality. You cant fathom that youre wrong so you go to extreme lengths to justify your wrong opinions. Calling Latinos and mexicans alt right just because they dont have the same opinion as you. No, latinos are not alt right or racist *against their own race* (how absurd) just because they dont share your politics.
There was another prager video talking about fascism. If you REALLY like how people play with wordings and definitions you should give it a watch. I'll be honest, knowing who the father of fascism is now... it makes so much sense it's scary.
+Dylan Tucker More like "fascism" (fascism = a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government)
I recently completed my masters degree in lesbian dance theory, but I am finding it hard to get a human resources or diversity officer job, I feel that it is my mission to interfere with hard working men and really mix it up a bit for them, I want to start on 300k a year as I am very important.
+bluediamondminer That's why I just kept going and am now working on my doctoral dissertation on dental hygiene of Amazonian aboriginal lesbians. Also, I have lowered my salary expectations to $250k.
If you define social justice as the absolut form of collectivist ideology. Social justice is more like equal opportunities and right's based on democratic values through interventions of the state based on the constitution. On the other hand communism is equality of outcome secured by equally distributed wealth.
It enables minorities to not work and just revive welfare from the government that comes out of the pocket of rich people. But what should happen is the rich should invest their money and creat jobs for minorities and lower class citizens to work for money, and not just get it for free
I am tired of liberals saying "ohh capitalism is unfair" "the poor working class stays poor". But they don't look at the fact that under capitalism, society mobility is the highest compare to socialist countries. People who work harder and smarter eventually get out of the working class and become capitalists. Under socialist policies, the poverty is subsidized by the government. The poor remains poor and we often see generations of dependent people living off government handouts paid for by the productive citizens.
Thats because many of them don't actually work , like work and even don't want to work at all. They think if everything is redistributed then everyone will have a good live where everyone can do whatever he/she wants. The problem with this is , if everyone will get "paid" even for doing nothing , the majority would too decide to do nothing. That leads to many problem and a ressource shortage where people will be either "enslaved" by forcing them to work or the actuall workers will be paid better and given more things and eventually rights. Which inturn will lead to "inequalitiy" - which inturn will lead either to people taking away the extras the working class has been given or most people will be working again to gain these extras. So it will become an unending cicle until we have reached a technological status where many ( not most millions of people still would be needed in the economy ) jobs will become obsoled because machines could do them. And this is the main problem with thouse people , they can't and don't want to see the whole picture , only the bits and pieces that support their claims.And thats why they should never be allowed to have power.
Hence, the half century old Democrat party "War On Poverty", which has done nothing to eliminate poverty in this country, but instead created a growing welfare state through redistribution of wealth. Billions have been funneled into this program, while the numbers of impoverished continue to grow, falsely justifying that even more money should be used to combat this "ever growing evil." History has repeatedly shown that poverty decreases with a growing economy.
Name how many people you know personally who were born poor and became rich through their own initiative. I bet that number is zero. The vast majority of the rich were born rich and are rich because they are part of an oligarchy. Social "mobility" is a myth.
I used to consider myself social justice warrior because I do champion social justice. But no longer do I see myself as of them, nor associate myself with those people. They are bigots and racists. Pure and simple. If you're a white, straight male, to them you are worse than Hitler. I am gay and also appalled by their bigotry. Sadly, the social justice crowd is only making the far right increase, as we have been witnessing in many European countries and also in the US. I do not think it's a bad thing, though. I still lean towards the left, but a reasonable left, not a totalitarian one ready to kill all white or straight people.
very true they are very bigoted people who are garbage. but I disagree with the fact they right wings are increasing . they are declining the word is slowing becoming a lefty
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.” ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)
Absolutely! The Religious Cult of Social Justice: Fascism, Communism and, yes, this Social Justice ideology, are all dangerous religion-replacing religions. Traditional religious belief in the West - and its commitment to Biblical principles - is rapidly eroding. Contrary to the ‘New Atheists’, religious belief isn’t irrational, it’s non-rational. It’s a commitment of faith. The commitments of the Secular Humanists -contrary to their ad-campaigns - are equally grounded in belief, not reason. I happen to share many of their moral commitments. This is not accidental. If I’m right, their moral views are an unacknowledged legacy of the Judeo-Christian world view. As the philosopher David Hume argued as far back as the 18th century, there is no rationally compelling argument that gets you from an observation of the world to a conclusion about what you should do. What is, simply is. What you should do is grounded in your value preferences. In other words, you can’t make claims about ‘what ought to be’ based on observations about what is. This is known as “the fact/ value” distinction. Now, in our everyday world, we make these sorts of claims all the time. They work - to the extent they do - because, at least in the West, there is a broad agreement on basic underlying values. (As noted above, these orienting values are however rapidly eroding as a result of social justice ideology. This is seriously undermining social cohesion.) The New Atheists make an abundance of value claims. These are disguised as rational deductions based on impartial observation. These are claims about what we, as moral agents, should do. This is moral commitment. Scientific observation and rational reflection just doesn’t get you there. For the New Atheist, rational reflection alone should deliver a commitment to human dignity. How is it that Stalin, Mao and Hitler all failed to recognized the truth of secular humanism…? They knew their policies would produce millions of deaths and mass suffering. They just didn’t care. They made observations of the world but had very different value preferences. Their moral commitments were elsewhere. Each was, in their own way, following Nietzsche. Nietzsche recognized that absent a belief in a Biblical God, Christian morality (and with it, the principle of the intrinsic dignity of the individual) was radically untethered to observations of the world. We were free to posit ‘alternative’ moral values… For Hitler, the National Socialist, the sick and the weak were a strain on national strength and racial purity . Sympathy towards them was nothing less than moral cowardice… And thus, the eugenics program. (By the way, he received his inspiration from liberal “progressives” of the day.). The Socialists, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, et al, believed their duty was to history and humanity. The individual meant absolutely nothing and so, about 100, 000, 000 individuals were casually sacrificed for the sake of the greater good. Notwithstanding the universality of religious belief, religions are not equal in their commitments or moral consequences. How, if a religious commitment isn’t grounded in reason or science, can we make judgements as to its worth? For the atheists out there my apologies, but I think the Bible has it exactly right: “You will know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7;15-20 NKJV). A fundamental principle in Judeo-Christianity is that all people have equal moral worth. Buddhism? The sick and the suffering are sick and suffering as a consequence of their misdeeds, either in this life or their last. Hinduism? You are assigned, at birth, into a ridged caste, a fixed moral hierarchy. Some people are considered literally “untouchable” and, yes, the moral consequences are appalling. In Islam, your moral worth is predicated upon your membership in the Umma, the Islamic family of faith. And Social Justice? What have they given us? Their fruits, as we shall see, are all poisonous. The Biblical tradition? It has given rise to human rights, the rule of law, democracy and unparalleled prosperity. Faith in the Judeo-Christian tradition couldn’t be more well placed. We all need to believe in something. This is where I stand. The rise of the Social Justice movement and the horrors of Fascism and Communism suggest that atheism just doesn’t scale. Hope you’ll check out my book “Deconstructing Social Justice”. I systematically dismantle the lies and misrepresentations of this cultural Marxism.
Conservatives accused of fascism…? Nonsense. Fascism and its racialized expression, Nazism, were, from the beginning, socialist: Hitler was, most definitely, a socialist. It’s right there in the name: “The National Socialist German Worker’s Party”, a.k.a. The Nazi Party. Following the example of Mussolini, Hitler fused socialism with nationalism. Although founding the Fascist Party, Mussolini was formerly a revolutionary socialist. Rather than fighting for socialism on a global scale, like the Communist internationalists, Mussolini wanted a national socialism. Hitler followed this inspiration. Here’s one of countless examples of Hitler declaring his commitment to Socialism: “We are socialists. We are the enemies of today’s capitalistic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions” ( Adolf Hitler, Public speech, Munich, 1 May 1927. Quoted from Toland, J. Adolf Hitler, 1976, p. 306 (Toland, 1976) It’s leftists authoritarianism that is the threat here, not conservatives. They want to conserve our rights and freedoms. It’s right there in the name, Conservatives. Hope you’ll check out my book “Deconstructing Social Justice”. If you want insight into what is really going on, this is the book for you.
@@einfrankfurter3520 i assume ur german cause of ur name... lol this is AMERICA... we bible thump here... we are the most fanatical religious nation of the western world... RED RIGHT REPUBLICANS = RELIGION they really dont believe in separation of church and state despite what they say.. they wont even vote for an atheist... REPUBLICAN AS A WHOLE.. WILL NOT VOTE FOR AN ATHEIST... they are too religious too... this Right vs LEFT.. in reality if u boil away all the bs... its RELIGION/CHRISTIANITY vs Secularism/evolution/science to further show this.. one is about controlling human sexual behaviors.. especially women.. while the latter is about accepting and embracing it.. which clearly god would not support.. lmao same right same opportunities etc.. arent really the issue... the real issue is religion is in decline.. more and more laws became less and less religious influenced... and to reinstate and pass even more laws with more religious influences into those laws and policies... america voted the way they did... and they use fear mongering.. especially how society and family values are under threat.. etc.. literally see this is cause tehy feel their "tradition religious" way of life is under attack and the refuse to "evolve" they DO NOT WANT CHANGE.. change is bad.. so democratic values.. because they come from a more secular party are seen as bad/cancer... cause again dems believe in separation of church and state.. though i would argue dems arent as good at it as Europeans... particularly germans... lol its also why half of america.. REPUBLICANS/RED/RIGHT dont really like europeans.. by that i mean.. they think Europeans are destroying their own society... especially women.. lmao... women this women that... i bet they would beat women with bibles if they could.. thank "god" for secularist atheists humanism etc the rights world view is that basic religious apocalyptic end of the world type of bs..
Conservatives accused of fascism…? Nonsense. Fascism and its racialized expression, Nazism, were, from the beginning, socialist: Hitler was, most definitely, a socialist. It’s right there in the name: “The National Socialist German Worker’s Party”, a.k.a. The Nazi Party. Following the example of Mussolini, Hitler fused socialism with nationalism. Although founding the Fascist Party, Mussolini was formerly a revolutionary socialist. Rather than fighting for socialism on a global scale, like the Communist internationalists, Mussolini wanted a national socialism. Hitler followed this inspiration. Here’s one of countless examples of Hitler declaring his commitment to Socialism: “We are socialists. We are the enemies of today’s capitalistic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions” ( Adolf Hitler, Public speech, Munich, 1 May 1927. Quoted from Toland, J. Adolf Hitler, 1976, p. 306 (Toland, 1976) It’s leftists authoritarianism that is the threat here, not conservatives. They want to conserve our rights and freedoms. It’s right there in the name, Conservatives. Hope you’ll check out my book “Deconstructing Social Justice”. If you want insight into what is really going on, this is the book for you.
Absolutely! Conservatives accused of fascism…? Nonsense. Fascism and its racialized expression, Nazism, were, from the beginning, socialist: Hitler was, most definitely, a socialist. It’s right there in the name: “The National Socialist German Worker’s Party”, a.k.a. The Nazi Party. Following the example of Mussolini, Hitler fused socialism with nationalism. Although founding the Fascist Party, Mussolini was formerly a revolutionary socialist. Rather than fighting for socialism on a global scale, like the Communist internationalists, Mussolini wanted a national socialism. Hitler followed this inspiration. Here’s one of countless examples of Hitler declaring his commitment to Socialism: “We are socialists. We are the enemies of today’s capitalistic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions” ( Adolf Hitler, Public speech, Munich, 1 May 1927. Quoted from Toland, J. Adolf Hitler, 1976, p. 306 (Toland, 1976) It’s leftists authoritarianism that is the threat here, not conservatives. They want to conserve our rights and freedoms. It’s right there in the name, Conservatives. Hope you’ll check out my book “Deconstructing Social Justice”. If you want insight into what is really going on, this is the book for you.
So according to this dude, inequality is no biggie. Wall Street dudes winning millions everyday while others are homeless right under their feet is a fact totally devoid of moral necessity, the only thing that we should care is that the Wall Street big boy gets his own and his private property be protected and respected. That's the important thing here. Really. The tone-deafness of this video is astounding.
The video clearly states the term 'social justice' is meaningless. And you seem to be implying that he is advocating stealing from the poor. Not so. He is advocating not stealing from ANYBODY. The most equal society is simply one where people get to keep what they've earned. Being forced by government to give up a larger slice of what is yours than others is theft. But note, the outcome of such a society will ALWAYS be that some will be rich and others poor, just like some can run faster than others. This would not make society inherently unfair. All you have is the sin of envy.
I just love the simpletons with the boring talking points. They haven't read a book yet apparently. When the biggest federal stimulus housing plan collapsed with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government housing agencies. Our enlightened progressives still believe America has "unabridged" capitalism. Let's see, every single citizen in America breaks multiple federal laws per day when there are over 2 million. How's that for regulation? Still not enough. America has one of the most progressive tax regimes in the world. Enlightened liberals aren't even aware of that: taxfoundation.org/blog/news-obama-oecd-says-united-states-has-most-progressive-tax-system washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/05/americas-taxes-are-the-most-progressive-in-the-world-its-government-is-among-the-least/ They still dismiss the concerns toward the catastrophic size of the government and it's results. The health insurance out of control when these heads basically decided that insurance companies should pay for everything but officials should also make sure it stays cheap. Welcome to progressive Amerika where the government spends more on education per capita than any other country. Providing a service below the 20th worldwide. Government spending is at $4,437 per person in health care only behind Luxembourg and Monaco, but 38th worldwide. A joke with the biggest deficit, external debt per capita and unfunded liabilities in pensions ever seen in history, sadly. Let's see, also 60% of college attendees borrowing loans annually to help cover the costs. These are available through private lending institutions which are under the Federal Family Education Loan Program. Public program funded by the federal government and administered by approved private lending organizations. Loans are underwritten and guaranteed by the government ensuring that the private sector would assume no risk should borrowers ultimately default. By 2020, the burden would be of 225 Billions. Thanks government for stimulating another bubble in college fees and putting those kids into debt. A government that reduced poverty 4% in 50 years whereas countries like China took 74% of the population in 25, without any social net in place and destroying it's own currency/subsidizing Americans on top of it lol. Even if America's dollar possess a monopoly as world's reserve currency and oil (liberals should worship their savior the petrodollar). And they subsidize everything from the NFL to random dictatorships around the world and corporations like Monsanto. So very much capitalistic indeed. Also a high corporate income tax. [The U.S corporate income tax rate is approximately 40%. The marginal federal corporate income tax rate on the highest income bracket of corporations is 35%. State and local governments may also impose income taxes ranging from 0% to 12%, the top marginal rates averaging approximately 7.5%. A corporation may deduct its state and local income tax expense when computing its federal taxable income, generally resulting in a net effective rate of approximately 40%. The effective rate may vary significantly depending on the locality in which a corporation conducts business.] kpmg.com/global/en/services/tax/tax-tools-and-resources/pages/corporate-tax-rates-table.aspx A really high percentage of people working for the government. governing.com/news/state/2010-census-public-employees-workforce-among-states.html becker-posner-blog.com/2011/09/too-many-government-workersposner.html And it turns out that actually, 58% of all Americans derive all or nearly all of their livelihood from the government. Somebody would prefer to talk only about the slice of government workers who are actually hired as full time government employees allowing him to use a % while ignoring the other % who make nearly all of their income from government. But that person would be knowingly leaving this bit out or not even aware of how the system works. The U.S government is basically one the largest employers on the planet. Military personel, private contractors, pensioners and veterans (retired govenrment workers drawing a government pension), Social Security Recipients and Low Income Housing benificiaries. Also, all the federal personal income tax is coming from the rich top 1% who "don't pay their fair share(sic)" and -9% from the poor... Obviously they also pay more on payroll tax, state income tax, sales tax, property tax, excise taxes, etc both in absolute terms and as percentage of income. Liberals #LeftWingNutJobs #IamWithStupid
***** To blame the current state of affairs in american education on the State is not just bizarre, it's an outright lie. Most countries ahead of the US in those same charts are *way* more socialistic in the education sector than any american can even dream of. Your whole rant is filled with the same sort of blindness that is the end result if you only balkanize your own sources of information from the same ideological backgrounds, without even trying to listen to the other side. To state that the US tax system is the "most progressive in the world" may well be technically true, but it doesn't take into account what is lacking in the US that other countries take for granted, like universalized health care for instance. This is the sort of statistical bullshit that can only come from ideological bullshitters that you should stray away from (be them from the left or the right). The very very rich have never paid so little in their share, and never had so much like today. They buy politicians, they buy the laws that govern you to favor them. But here you are, shilling for them. Jesus F Christ.
logofreetv "Being forced to give up" - that's called stealing, and that's exactly what it is. Stealing from citizen A and giving to citizens B and C because the thief has been given the power to do so by B and C. If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul's vote.
Those self-proclaimed messiahs who lecture us in "social justice" doesn't care about ending poverty, they want to end wealth. If everyone in the world was poor, they wouldn't care, what kills them with outraged is the fact that some have wealth. These self-proclaimed messiahs really want to level everyone to poverty and mediocrity. That's why they advocate lowering admission standard in college based on your ethnic group, giving everyone a passing grade for just showing up etc. I came to the conclusion that socialism and archaeo-marxism is a religion base on a political ideology. That political ideology is utopia.
8 years later and this shit rings true. I have a professor who says that people need to give things up so everyone can be happy and the fact that people get defensive or fight against things being taken away from them proves that social justice is "doing its job". She's a maniac
As I listen to this and read the comments I find that I have been lacking for my definition on this subject. Thank you one and all for helping me to more clearly grasp the concept of adding to the word "Justice".
I've met plenty of people who talk about the need for "social justice" but every time the subject is brought up I always point out I've never met anyone who said they're in favor of social *in*-justice.
Most of these "modern women" tend to be the Sandra Fluke style ugly chicks. Yeah, you can get laid easily, but only if you *drastically* lower your standards.
9 years and this held up? Gee. Sorry, but that's a pretty simplet thing to point out. It'S like saying the absence of water is a fire. Not everything has a plain, diametrically opposed contrary. The absence or lack of justice, lack of equity in society is sufficient to motivate the desire or need, or feel of a need of social justice, whether you believe it's an actual lack or a thing fed by left propaganda. You don't need to have ''pro injustice'' people marching in the streets.
Well as a conservative I agree with much of what Mr. Goldberg is saying. However there is a deeper meaning to these issues than simply insisting that the government is responsible for Social Justice, and that Social Justice as a greater concept should be opposed. There is a basic human desire to see positive change in the lives of other people that transcends beyond social compact, left vs. right philosophy. And conservatives like me feel compelled to participate in the free market system to offer greater value thereby helping to create a path of upward mobility for others than simply earning a profit. If I lived in the South during the Civil Rights movement, I undoubtedly would have marched for change. But I would have resisted Federal mandates to enforce change. In other words the change must come from within and those who argue for change should enjoy every right to call for change. What Mr. Goldberg should have included in his presentation was that concepts under the banner of Social Justice are the responsibility of the individual. Individuals who are compelled to want change must participate in bringing change. Society evolves not from the creation and perfection of government programs, but from the enlightenment of society. A free society isn't very free if the producers in society impose economic limitations on consumers and workers simply because they are free to do so. Society needs counter-balances, competition, and choices. While government should be used sparingly in such endeavors, I would be the first to endorse any law that protects consumers from fraud, workers from harmful working conditions, full and complete enfranchisement including the right to unions, and prevent industries from monopolistic and anti-competitive practices that harm economic growth. In a different era, these issues might have fallen under the banner of "Social Justice".
Social Justice is the idea that justice is better served to the populace when based upon meaningless factor such as race or social class and the results of decisions are then applied to the populace on the basis of race and social class. This is of course, in direct violation of the rights of the individual and scientific fact.
You can have several interpretation of what "Social justice" is, contrary to what the twat in the video says, there is even a libertarian one, and it is perfectly normal ! Every democratic capitalistic society must be perceived by it's member as somehow just. The most obvious factor, and actually the only one in use is earning. Do you not think it is abnormal that some people could earn in a year more than you'd gain your ENTIRE LIFE, while other can barely feed and cloth themselfes ? At some point you don't even need more money, but you know who else does ? Your state who has to compensate this massive deficit, or those households that survive on extremely unhealthy food and can't hope to provide decent education to it's children.
LaFlammeAzure You are falling victim to the old equality of results vs. freedom argument. You believe that all people should be guaranteed a minimal level of success in life, sadly, that is not reality, nor is it nature's design. Now, there are plenty of rich people in this world, but do you know how their wealth is generally held? It is held in stock of companies, well, the part that isn't held in massive estates is generally held in stock portfolios. These people are using their wealth to invest in businesses which create jobs and employ the world. Sure, you can find wealthy families that inbreed and maintain their vast fortunes gained through deception and outright lying, (I'm looking at your Rothschild's, Bush's, and all the people involved in the military industrial complex) but many earn their fortunes through hard work and revolutionary ideas backed by a consumer base of millions or tens of millions. BTW, I never gave the state the right to use myself as collateral for debt, so you can pound sand if you expect me to act as a slave and pay back the debt incurred by this gov't.
Society is what we make of it, so excuse me if I disagree with your concepts of "reality" and "natural design" If an individual earns several billions a year and an entity (the state) forces him to share some of it with people who can barely feed and cloth themselves, who do you think is the greedy one ? Now indeed the wealthiest people hold most of their wealth in stock, and you know what's great about stock ? You don't have to work to earn your living if you have a large number of them. Take the Walton family, foundator of walmart Sam Walton's wife and children and among the richest people in USA, and in the world. They own Walmart, and all their shares have been directly inherited from their husband/father, they earn more in year than you will in your entire life, that hardly seems fair considering they are not the hardworking visionnair you speak of. Basically their job consist of paying people to take care of the management of business, who are the lazy people now ? On another point, yes investment is good and necessary, but so is consumption, you need to strike a balance, you cannot say, the richer the rich, the better, consumption makes an economy go round, more so than investment. i do not believe we could (and should) ever creat a world without inequality, but I do think those should be reduced so the poorest can live decent lives and that workers, business owners and shareholders receive a fair share of the economic growth they all contribute to create Finally, about national debt, that might sound astounding to you, but yes, you and your compatriots are partly, but directly responsible for it, why do you think America owes so much to China ? That's because they procuce all the manufactured goods YOU consume. Saying the national debt is only the state affair and that you have nothing to do with it is outright selfish and false, because YOU are collectively responsible for it and YOU will be the ones affected by it. USA spends a shit ton of money on military to protect it's interest and it's people, it's interest are YOUR interest (mostly) and it's people is, you guessed it, you. When the states spends billions to sustain it's economy, it is to safeguard your jobs and your business. BTW any business you might create and thrive to see succeed is somehow allowed by convenient and indulgent laws and dispositon the state has arranged. Steve Jobs wouldn't have created Apple and made fortune if he had moved to China when he was 6.
LaFlammeAzure You seem pretty sure about your Keynsian ideas. Consumption does not create wealth. Nor does it serve to spread it around. The individual creation of wealth comes from a person using their own time and abilities to better their own situation. Some people know how to harness this ability of others to make themselves rich. Such as the Waltons that you speak of. But face it, most Wal-Mart employees would not be able to make as much from their own labor if they were guiding their own actions. I see them all the time. They are hardly able to operate their registers or organize a home goods shelf. They have little to no skills and even less ambition. The fact that the Walton family runs a business that utilizes these people to effectively run a multi-billion if not a trillion dollar enterprise is quite amazing to me. Still, I can see where you are coming from claiming that this is inequality and an unjust system. For years I thought about creating a non-profit company that hired, trained, housed, fed, and provided medical treatment for the homeless. Then I came to the realization that homeless people are homeless because they don't want to do anything meaningful with their lives. They have no hope of doing better for themselves or those around them and even if you gave them everything they needed and then some, they wouldn't work for you.
dlstb "I never gave the state the right to use myself as collateral for debt, so you can pound sand if you expect me to act as a slave and pay back the debt incurred by this gov't." You never signed off on the construction of the roads or the schools that taught you or the electrical grid that gave you light; but you used it all didn't you dumbass? Unless you're planning on overthrowing the federal gov't you have 3 options; pay your taxes, go to jail or find another country.
Working in law enforcement I felt that social justice meant justice for everyone. I felt that once someone calls 911 whether theyre liberal or conservative, black or white doesnt matter. I also though government aid being redistributed to some of our lowest income states was a good thing. As a republican living in a blue state with one the highest median incomes MD $75,000 I always thought poverty in conservative states was often overlooked. Seeing how the top 3 states with highest federal aid money were all red states MS 45% LA 44 % TN 41% in 2012 I didnt realize I was part of the problem. I'll keep that in mind next time someone brings that up, I wouldnt mind more government taxes staying here at home.
Social justice is taking money from producers by the state. Then, giving that money to people who refuse to work. This is enforced by the power of the state to tax and imprison people.
That's a naturally limited field. There always have to be more producers than capitalists, or the capitalists won't have anything to leech from the producers.
That's one of the biggest ironies: the same people who claim (falsely) that Conservatives are trying to "impose" our beliefs and the like on others are themselves far more guilty of it.
Social justice to me, is not that everyone is economically equal, but that everyone has the opportunity to be economically equal. This is just impossible though.
Hi Violet, everyone gets 12 years of free public education, and if you study hard and get good grades, you will succeed. What the left really dislikes is that some people are smarter and work harder than others, thus are more successful.
"Those who give up freedom for security shall have neither" -Ben Franklin"When people fear the government, there is tyranny but when the government fear the people, you have liberty" -Thomas Jefferson
I have heard some Christian denominations talk about Jesus & social justice. But I have never been able to find the term in any of the Gospels. Neither do I see it exemplified. I doubt it has anything to do with loving your neighbor. And that is because what love gives willingly, social justice seems to take via coercion. Charity is obligatory for Muslims, & all those non-Muslims who live in Muslim majority nations, according to sharia. However, once it becomes an obligation, it is no longer charitable.
B. Aaron von Hagen social justice is all about favoritism. they favor the poor at the expense of the rich. the bible says do not favor the poor in judgement even thought that is exactly what social justice does
vdlluca Seems to go against the teachings in the bible. Also, I suggest you read upon the medieval church. They were basically the central government of Europe and had plenty of fun scandals involving violence, buying the papacy, 2 papacies at once and massive hidden papal vaults.
Anytime you limit a universal term like "justice" with an adjective like "social" you have diluted and restricted it, not expanded upon it. Plain old fashioned ordinary justice is what we need.
That quote about people believing in absolute truth being an enemy of social Justice blew my mind. I thought it was going in a totally different direction but holy shit how does that quote even exist.
Looking back, it's amazing how much public sentiment of social justice has changed since 2014. These days even my liberal friends have grown disdained from the term social justice. This gave me some hope for humanity.
This one I love. I'm dirt poor. But I know the kind of people they are talking about when it comes to the "have nots". What differentiates me is that I don't want a piece of someone else's pie. I want my own. I just have to learn how to make one.
Yes,you can only enter a contract as a free and sane adult individual with your consent.A social contract was never presented to me to sign-it's an oxymoronic term.
Nick Hanlon Here's the worst bit: a contract implies 'consideration' on the part of both parties. I.e. If I owe something to society then society also owes me something in return. We're not even getting that part right.
Nick Hanlon The moment you're of age to consent you can leave and go somewhere else. No society is going to operate based on the idea that you can opt out of the legal framework voluntarily.
The word "equal" is different from "equitable" and the latter is a main motivation for proponents of social justice. To be fair, not all Americans are really created equal. Who are we kidding?
@@lsour8546 the phrase was meant in the sense that we all have the same rights and should be judged the same under the law. It was never implying that we all have the same health, personality traits (like conscientiousness), etc Which is fundamentally in opposition to equity which focuses strongly on our differences and aims to give people unique considerations and privileges depending on their identity.
Economic redistribution is an essential part of a just society. When a family has a baby do they say, "Sorry, no food for you; you didn't earn it." Of course not. The haves (the parents) give to the child. It IS a serious mistake to assume the government can or should be the primary redistributor of wealth. Family, employers paying employees, inheritance, and charitable gifts are all valid forms of wealth redistribution. Further, failure to do so (as we are currently failing, BTW) creates social injustice and the resulting social disorder.
That is the most condescending thing I've heard in a very long time. The idea that the government is like a parent and the people are the children... Your true colors are showing
CaptainBraxxton I didn't assume that. In fact I implied the opposite. Government is not the best redistributor of wealth. But government makes the laws. Those laws can favor various other means of wealth distribution. Or they can collect all the power centrally (which seems to be a popular trend). Laws can support families, or oppose them. Laws can support workers getting fair wages, or encourage slavery. Laws can encourage religious institutions and voluntary giving or tax such things out of existence. The government exists. Laws exist. Will we make them wise, or pretend we don't have a choice?
All the people who you want to redistribute my "wealth" to aren't my baby and I'm not responsible for their very existence. I don't owe them breakfast lunch and dinner + housing, clothing,free money, etc. I have no problem with sharing what I can or FEEL LIKE. That's my decision though. Funny how all the grandiose ideas of the left are to be paid for by someone else. Every liberal I know thinks their taxes should be zero though, as if they already paid with good intentions. Textbook cognitive dissonance.
Rainboworafish I'm a conservative. I believe the government and economy exist to serve people. The philosophy that a person isn't in any way responsible for other people went out with the agricultural revolution. Since then people have specialized in their work. That means trade or theft. People who trade are concerned with providing a fair (i.e. social justice) framework for the trades. Theft, not so much. Ideally people would share equally in profits. But of course that never happens. The haves arrange the system to favor themselves and workers get a subsistence level wage. At least they do until some misfortune knocks them out of competition (and their lives if there's no safety net). Since 1970 worker productivity has more than doubled. Real wages have gone down. That means people are getting paid less than 1/2 the value of their work. Redistribution of wealth is happening. Wealth is being taken from the working poor and "given" (taken, not earned) to the very wealthy. That is not how old style conservatives want the system to work. It is how too many modern conservatives think. Taking unearned wealth is theft. Sure a wealthy guy can buy a senator to make it legal, but it is still immoral. Social justice types feel the problem and try to fix it with simple solutions. While there are better solutions, they are blocked by the rich with their pocket senators. This allows other rich people to pander to the unreasoned anger of the workers and steal even more from them. No man is an island.
Jeff Rosenbury "Ideally people would share equally in profits." That's called ideal communism. Except, that's not what the ideal is. Here is the issue: Entrepreneurs take risks and invest in a business to try to make it work. When they hire employees, they do not share in that risk. Employees get paid no matter how bad the business is going. If profits sink 50% in one month, the employees still need to be paid their full amount. The fact is, becoming an employee is not a risk. You agree upon a set wage with your employer and expect to be paid just that. Now on the other hand, if you were a business partner, meaning you owned part of the business, then you would share the profits according to your contract. But, you would also share the losses. You might even be personally responsible for paying a percent of the debts if the business goes up in flames. Of course taking unearned wealth is theft, but the definition of "earn" bears no preference to your personal opinion. If Walmart wants to pay their CEO 25+ million dollars, it's their business. If you hate their business, stop buying from them and then rally others together to stop buying from them. Boycott them and tell them that if they don't change their ways you won't buy from them or work for them anymore. Stop thinking about how to take money from other people's pockets that they earned, whether you feel they deserve it or not, and start using your personal freedoms to inspire change.
What are you proposing, taking of all our freedoms and wealth? The USSR and Mao's China are the ultimate form of the state intervening. Hundreds of millions died in the 20th century just from these two states killing their own people who stood in the way of governmental progress. Free Market? There hasn't been one since the sixties in the West. What we have now is corporatism. That is not a free market in any sense.
Unfortunately, your comment is a testament to your ignorance of free market economics. You can remedy that by doing some reading about free market economics from any economist from the Austrian school. Since this is only a five and a half minute video, Jonah Goldberg did not touch on how a free market economy can remedy many of the problems (mostly created by government intervention) that plague our society. A free market economy is not a utopian ideal, but it is the most moral system. It is based on voluntary exchange.
Alright, good speech. Can we talk about the term "freedom" then please? You have the exact same dilemma, because everybody imposes something else with that term and no it is definately not "absence of law". And it's the oh so important value we lose through social justice? Again good speech!
Just watched a commercial during the Super Bowl, touting the NFL's commitment to "social justice" and had to figure out what the hell they're talking about.
It's not your money, it's your CEO's money, and the others who get paid 100 times plus what you make for sitting behind a desk "managing" from a distance.
Managing from a distance behind a desk is still doing something even though its way over rated, overly exaggerated and unjustifyably compensated. There are those that do nothing but own and hoard and still manage to make a killing by collecting royalty, dividen, rental and capaital gain.
Many of the Congress members and Senate members currently or used to work for huge, established companies with large lobbies, so many would already be extremely wealthy.
Wal-Marts CEO makes 800 times the median wage of the company. Which wouldn't bug me as much if most Wal-Mart employees weren't also on welfare due to their terrible pay. Subsidizing big box store wages via welfare and they still screw over their employees at every opportunity to make their bottom line look better to share holders. Lets not even talk about what this does to small businesses.
I see your point. Obviously the language surrounding politics frequently lacks a coherent definition, and when it is defined, it sometimes creates a dichotomy between "good" and "bad." However, it's a semantic argument, that applies to just about any form of political speak in our language. And it doesn't speak to the real economic issues facing the international political economy. In similar ways, the libertarian message lacks any real-world application, as it is based primarily upon what a person or a group of people think are just policies, regardless of their effect on international markets or local spending power. The left has largely abandoned Communism, and their hopes for a utopian world of total financial and economic equality. It is neo-liberal economics that acknowledges the limited good a totally unregulated market can deliver to participants. For example, the United States is known for its consumption of consumer goods like textiles, agricultural commodities, and technology. If we can really look at wealth distribution in the United States and see an accelerating trend of market polarity, wherein fewer people have an exponentially larger share of ownership of the market, then it presents a problem, in that consumers can no longer afford to consume. More people cannot afford a descent education. Fewer people have access to essential health services. Those two problems alone have a detrimental effect on the long-term success of the American economy. So I think there is a point to be made that while liberals frequently employ language that lacks a coherent meaning, libertarians employ ideologies that ignore the history of the international economy, favoring instead ideologically based notions of liberty and freedom (Which also lack a coherent meaning).
I do at least agree with your negative assessment of the quality of education. Your misspelling of "decent" as "descent" (ironically enough denoting a decline) illustrates the point at least as well as any argument you may articulate for it.
We are not equal. We should stop trying to strive for equality. Some people are born with skills others don't have. Some skills are learned and others aren't able to or decide not to learn them. We will never have a completely equal society EVEN IF we strove for a purely socialist America (which is a scary thought to me personally). The system in which we have the greatest opportunity to achieve equality IS the free-market system whether you would like to believe that or not. I'm tired of hearing that we should strive to be more like Canada, the UK, France, Russia, etc, etc. This is ridiculous, we are not perfect but we are the best thing going for the planet Earth. The sand that grinds up the cogs of capitalism and that makes the free-market less efficient is redistribution-of-wealth social policies. We can try to steal from the rich to pay for the poor but the rich don't end up paying because they make the rules. Social policies only hurt the middle and lower classes, more so the lower class and that's a proven fact. The period in American history in which Americans described themselves as the most equal was in the late 1800's and early 1900's when our society was free of 'steal from all' in the interest of the poor programs, that came shortly thereafter. Interestingly enough, that same time period was filled with overwhelming charity, philanthropy, and opportunity never again experienced here on Earth. The social programs that were designed to help the poor only serve to grow our federal government and create widening disparity in the income of Americans.
Galen M Who said anything about equality? I'm talking about sensible economics. Again, an example of how the new breed of tea-party republicans would rather quote the founding fathers or talk about ideology than discuss the reality of the market.
Honestly this is incredibly interesting. The most ironic part of this is that is that the comments under this video are an echo chamber, but the idea is that all people on the left think the same. I implore people on both sides to think critically. Just because someone calls themselves a Univeristy doesn't make it such. Propaganda is propaganda...
OH YOU CAN'T THINK CRITICALLY. NO THINKING CRITICALLY. THAT'S FORBIDDEN!!! Pardon my attempted sarcasm. To think " critically" these days gets you accused of being " marxist" and possibly verbally accosted at a school board meeting. AND accused of hating all white people because they are white.
Here I have a definition of social justice: to give every human being the real possibilities of economic, social, political, and cultural growth in the short term without being restricted by the economic, social, political, and cultural conditions inherited by others.
Many will say this isn't good enough. Its not enough to give people opportunities. As the UN states, it must involve an attempted correction of outcomes using strong government forces. So if for example you get sick and are unable to work for a few years. Its not enough to help you have the opportunity to bounce back from that. But rather the govt should take from those who didn't to make your bank account more similar to them. So where a conservative might want govt getting in the way of markets to allow you job opportunities, and a liberal would want govt programs to help you get back on your feet, a social justice leftist might focus on trying to undo the past by paying you money you weren't able to earn previously.
@@lightfeather9953 trying to undo the past by paying you money you weren't able to earn previously its a discussion almost exclusive to the United States. In the rest of the world, we are more intrested in other forms of real oportunities.
***** Republic comes from the Latin res publica, interest of the public. Leading pretty quickly to the motto in the first Tron movie: They de-ressed him.
puppetsock just saw this. No. Derezzing was "Deresolution", or a total breakdown of a program's code and shell, essentially deleting or killing them. And yes, republic acts in public interest, but it also acts outside, and often against, private interest, which is why republicanism will always fail to preserve liberty, or increase freedom. They ultimately act in the interest of the State. Almost "derezzes" their so-called "principles" right there. tron.wikia.com/wiki/Derez
I agree that the term "social justice" is abused constantly in order to impose a political agenda, but I think that the title of the video is misleading, because this video didn't say what "social justice" really is: "Social justice is the fair and just relation between the individual and society" What really is "fair" or "just" it another topic.
Sweden is the perfect example of a country that applies social justice in every single aspect of life. It worked for a while but now see where it has gotten us!
This is the most biased educational video I have been required to view in my college career. If you just argue one side you are not educating you are pushing an opinion.
The word "social" throws people off. It's just too harmless sounding. People think about positive human interaction and sociological aspects of society, when really, "social" has a different meaning when used in the phrases "Social Justice" or "Social Democracy". This "social" has to do with Socialism, the same way "Nazi" has to do with Nazism. Fascism was essentially Socialism (often deemed "National Socialism"), but it allowed for some private property and private businesses (which were heavily regulated), had a religious aspect, and a nationalistic aspect. It was collectivism all the same: big government, anti-capitalism, anti-indiviualism, etc. The Nazi's were horrible people, an obvious truth. But socialism and communism (as well as their many versions such as Maoism, Stalinism, Leninism, etc... which allow for leftists to constantly say "that wasn't socialism/communism", but I digress) are responsible for MUCH MORE mass murder than Nazism. However, there are very few words in the English language that carry a more negative image than the term "Nazi"; while there are few words more harmless than the word "social". If we look at "social" and "Nazi" for one second, as the root words to "Socialism" and "Nazism", it can highlight just how meaningless the modern buzz words describing collectivist societies are. We've all heard "it's not Socialism, it's Democratic Socialism!" as well as "It's not Socialism at all, it's a Social Democracy". At an uneducated first glance, it sounds better, doesn't it? Now imagine "It's not Nazism, it's Democratic Nazism" or "it's not Nazism at all, it's a Nazi Democracy". Somehow, it all sounds just as bad. And that is because it *would* be just as bad. Once a country moves far enough left, there is a domino effect that is nearly impossible to stop. When leftists claim that those opposing a Social Democracy are merely overreacting, all I hear is "you silly goose, we're not knocking down the last domino, only the first one". Many countries in Europe (notably Scandinavia) have encountered this already. Before they knew it, they found themselves in economic (as well as healthcare crisis, and were forced to re-privatize and deregulate key industries/enterprises in order to bounce back. Even as small, relatively ethnically homogeneous countries receiving copious amounts of foreign aid, the amount of Socialism in their economy proved to be too much. It's a shame that so many people are so ignorant of history. I am not saying that "Social Democracy", "Democratic Socialism" and "Socialism" are synonymous. But I am saying that they all lead down the same path, with some temporarily not going as far down said path. Hopefully more people will begin to look at the word "social" differently in the future. The word "Democracy" itself sounds great at an uneducated first glance. People seem to forget that there is no better way to dismiss the needs of minorities by imposing "majority rule". They also seem to forget that the United States is not a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic. The electoral college gives every *state* a voice, as we are the United *States* of America. We are not the United Major Cities. People who live in cities have an entirely different set of issues and values for which they vote. What is best for urban America is rarely what is best for rural America. And what is decided by a majority of our citizenry isn't always what's best for our nation as a whole. Income tax is theft. As soon as you make money, it immediately becomes a part of your total sum of money. The government then forces you to take some of your money and give it them. So really, it's no different than taking money out of every citizen's personal safe or bank account, right? Not so fast. Despite it being obvious theft, there would be a strange form of equality exhibited if that were the case. Income tax, instead, only steals from those trying to better themselves financially (and legally). There is no such thing as "taxing the rich". There is only "tax those who legally make a lot of money". An innumerable amount of people do not pay taxes in America: drug dealers, illegals, filthy rich people with no official legal income, prostitutes, and various other criminals. Texas and Florida have zero income tax and exhibit economies larger and more prosperous than most countries. All they have is sales tax. I support the "Fair Tax" and I hope anyone reading this will look into it. You'll find that it has much more advantages than I have mentioned here. But regardless of whether or not you feel some income tax is necessary, it's rather obvious that, in countries labeled as "Social Democracies", taxes have gotten out of hand. This is an important time in our nation's history. If I made even one of you think differently of the term "social" or "democracy" , mission accomplished.
Communism as defined by Dictionary.com is, "a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state." While what the far left is insinuating is more akin to Socialism, but with a more "progressive" twist, and I use the term "progressive" very loosely.
Bryan Gough GEORGE SOROS IS FUNDING FAR LEFTIST LIBAREAL STATE AND LOCAL JUDGES AND DISTRICT ATTORNYS. STAND UP TOGETHER AGAINST THE CORRUPT SOCIAL JUSTICE REFORM.
Thank you for your heavily biased and one sided view on theoretical social justice and its' role of the government, its' flawed practical implementation, and the incompetency of those that advocate for ridiculous policies such as welfare, public education, and so forth. There is more to the story than what Mr. Goldberg is painting. Rigidity in conceptualization and application, no matter what the angle, rarely does anyone any good. It is one thing to have a view point, it is another to assign gross incompetence or even nefariousness to a group that disagrees with that view point, especially with regards to such a complex topic like the role of government in the lives of the citizens.
It's a pretty massive coincidence then, that pretty much everything he said has been proven accurate time and again by practical, first-hand experience in trying to have a conversation with liberals about ANYTHING related to economic policy. I think he just struck a nerve, and now you are all butthurt and lashing out. Prove me wrong by defining "social justice" for the class. And talk about "heavily biased and one sided views"... look at you, snarkily saying "those that advocate for ridiculous policies such as welfare, public education, and so forth". NOBODY here, nor in the vid, said that those things were ridiculous. You're just doing what libs always do, and trying to shove words into people's mouths so you can condemn them with a clear(ly deluded) conscience.
Just like Dennis has always said, when you hyphenate something, the value of the hyphenated is now less. Leviticus 19:15 Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.
You say the "role of government" as if they are another species of human. It would be better to say the role of people intruding into the affairs of other people. They are not endowed with some greater propensity for fairness (whatever that means) or compassion they are simply humans who are subject to the same frailty as all other humans. Any blind belief that this third party can solve peoples problem better than they can solve them themselves is simply irrational.
Boy, you don't know what's out there to you look right at it! Said the blind man, as he waited for the light to change so he could get back across the street.
Social justice is defined as “… promoting a just society by challenging injustice and valuing diversity.” It exists when “all people share a common humanity and therefore have a right to equitable treatment, support for their human rights, and a fair allocation of community resources.” In conditions of social justice, people are “not be discriminated against, nor their welfare and well-being constrained or prejudiced on the basis of gender, sexuality, religion, political affiliations, age, race, belief, disability, location, social class, socioeconomic circumstances, or other characteristic of background or group membership” (Toowoomba Catholic Education, 2006). To Rawls, social justice is about assuring the protection of equal access to liberties, rights, and opportunities, as well as taking care of the least advantaged members of society. Thus, whether something is just or unjust depends on whether it promotes or hinders equality of access to civil liberties, human rights, opportunities for healthy and fulfilling lives, as well as whether it allocates a fair share of benefits to the least advantaged members of society. Rawls does not suggest that everyone will agree with what justice requires in given situations, but rather that his conception of justice as fairness can fit into “conflicting doctrines” because of what he calls “overlapping consensus.” That is, people agree enough about the basic principles of justice he offers that even when they disagree about larger moral, religious of philosophical issues they can still agree about issues of social justice (Rawls, 2003: 32-37). All the above is from “What is Social Justice?” by Matthew Robinson, PhD
Lol, "social justice?" More like "socialist justice."
I want to state for everyone that I now disagree with this point of view but I’m going to leave this here to remind me that my opinion will never stop changing and never likely be correct
That would be great, since socialism is pretty epic
Troll -_-.
Aiden Hall ?
is this a troll?
There is no way he isnt a troll.
Social Justice = Liberal Fascism
"State is the name of the coldest of all icy monsters. Coldly it tells lies, and this lie crawls from its mouth: 'I, the State, am the people.' That is a lie for it was creators who made peoples and who hung a faith and a love over them, thus they served life!"
_Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, On the New Idol
Son of Tiamat (formerly known as tiakpark) Wasn't Nietzsche the one who kind of started the third Reich?
Edgar Coapman No. Nietzsche hated anti-Semites and nationalists, so its fair to say he would have seen the Nazis as the lowest. Did the Nazis use Nietzsche as a poster boy? Yes. Does that mean he was a proto-Nazi? No. However his sister, Elizabeth Nietzsche, who inherited his estate, was and pushed her own agenda.
"Anti-Semitism: a symptom of the bungled and the botched."_Nietzsche
"The Jews are the most remarkable people in the history of the world."_Nietzsche
Son of Tiamat (formerly known as tiakpark) Well thank you for enlightening me more on the subject.
Edgar Coapman You're welcome :)
Mark Wright I've never read Hayak. Nietzsche just happens to be a near and dear philosopher to me so I just used that quote somewhat arbitrarily, and not as a really well-read intellectual ball of fire.
You could try reading Nietzsche but his philosophy isn't for everyone. The only other philosopher he most gets compared to is Ayn Rand, even though they both have a lot of differences, so he's somewhat natural for some libertarian-conservative minded people like myself.
However, Jonah Goldberg himself doesn't like Nietzsche and cited him as one of the philosophers used by the people he damns in his book, Liberal Fascism.
If you wanted to read him, though, I'd suggest starting with Beyond Good and Evil or the Genealogy of Morals.
Social justice should be about equal opportunity, and that's all. What you do with your opportunity is up to you, and no one else's fault.
It pretty much is.
Social justice, for when real justice doesn't give you the results you want.
slightlytwistedagain Social Justice, for when working for your money is too tiring and oppressive.
slightlytwistedagain Justice needs no qualifier.
slightlytwistedagain Favorite definition!
my nama jef
Social justice has turned into cancer
Feminism is cancer. It’s about giving women rights to be equal to men. Also, if it’s for both genders (which it’s not), then change the name of it. Egalitarianism is better, it’s for both genders.
Black lives matter? All lives matter! What about other “unprivileged minorities?” What about whites?
Fat acceptance? Obesity is unhealthy, you can’t change the facts. Also, “thin privilege?” We often take care of ourselves.
Pride parades are hypersexualized, flamboyant, and harmful. You people must want people to hate us.
“Privileged straight white male?” Do you want a new era of racism, homophobia, and sexism? That makes many do.
Social justice isn’t bravery anymore. We already have our rights. Discrimination will never end no matter what, you’re “beating on a dead horse”
This is coming from a gay male, so I’m not being hypocritical.
More like selfish justice
Ben Shapiro said it best: (paraphrase) "the words 'justice' and 'correctness' are already pure words that don't need anything added to them. So if you add to them 'social' and 'political', you imply that justice and correctness were never enough, and that injustice is greater than justice.
Im sorry can you help me translate that "injustice is greater than justice" part
"Pure" words? What are you going on about? Social justice isn't trying to imply that Justice itself isn't "enough." Just like criminal justice doesn't. They're all just concepts that make up the idea of "Justice." It's not that one is different from the other, it's that they're part of a larger concept.
Your issue begins where you use BEN SHAPIRO as your reference 🤦♀️🤦♀️🤦♀️
@@ckevorkianxo You're afraid of him? All the better :)
Jonny even the most radical fights know better than to reference Sharpio in any sort of intelligent debate
There should be no word in front of Justice. The moment that happens it becomes a weasel phrase.
@Nelson's Rudolph
"Everyone i dont like is a racist"
Such baby mentality. You cant fathom that youre wrong so you go to extreme lengths to justify your wrong opinions. Calling Latinos and mexicans alt right just because they dont have the same opinion as you.
No, latinos are not alt right or racist *against their own race* (how absurd) just because they dont share your politics.
There was another prager video talking about fascism. If you REALLY like how people play with wordings and definitions you should give it a watch.
I'll be honest, knowing who the father of fascism is now... it makes so much sense it's scary.
Without a qualifier, the term justice is essentially meaningless.
@JJ Rodzilla I’d like to see you come up with a definition of justice that works without normative component as qualifier.
@JJ Rodzilla I honestly don’t believe this to be an issue of left or right...
"Social Justice" has become synonymous with "censorship" for me.
It's also become a synonyms with "communism".
+Olivia Weaver-Thomas
They aint liberal though... They are anything but liberal... They are Authoritarian control freaks.
+Xanatos712 Censorship and bullying.
+Dylan Tucker More like "fascism" (fascism = a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government)
Thats what the SJW movement in the US has done to it.
I recently completed my masters degree in lesbian dance theory, but I am finding it hard to get a human resources or diversity officer job, I feel that it is my mission to interfere with hard working men and really mix it up a bit for them, I want to start on 300k a year as I am very important.
+bluediamondminer That's why I just kept going and am now working on my doctoral dissertation on dental hygiene of Amazonian aboriginal lesbians. Also, I have lowered my salary expectations to $250k.
Al Brautigam
Lol "Amazonian aboriginal lesbians", may I have your permission to use that?
bluediamondminer Go ahead; Spread it far and wide ;)
+Al Brautigam +bluediamondminer You all need to stop!! LOLOLOLOLLLLL
+bluediamondminer
Is that you Mr. Shapiro?
social justice= comunisum
If you define social justice as the absolut form of collectivist ideology. Social justice is more like equal opportunities and right's based on democratic values through interventions of the state based on the constitution. On the other hand communism is equality of outcome secured by equally distributed wealth.
It enables minorities to not work and just revive welfare from the government that comes out of the pocket of rich people. But what should happen is the rich should invest their money and creat jobs for minorities and lower class citizens to work for money, and not just get it for free
Christopher Tuttle thats what i'm thinking about too!
You left out censorship, and restriction of constitutional rights.
Vladimiros Karin social justice has became the bully
I am tired of liberals saying "ohh capitalism is unfair" "the poor working class stays poor". But they don't look at the fact that under capitalism, society mobility is the highest compare to socialist countries. People who work harder and smarter eventually get out of the working class and become capitalists. Under socialist policies, the poverty is subsidized by the government. The poor remains poor and we often see generations of dependent people living off government handouts paid for by the productive citizens.
Thats because many of them don't actually work , like work and even don't want to work at all.
They think if everything is redistributed then everyone will have a good live where everyone can do whatever he/she wants.
The problem with this is , if everyone will get "paid" even for doing nothing , the majority would too decide to do nothing.
That leads to many problem and a ressource shortage where people will be either "enslaved" by forcing them to work or the actuall workers will be paid better and given more things and eventually rights.
Which inturn will lead to "inequalitiy" - which inturn will lead either to people taking away the extras the working class has been given or most people will be working again to gain these extras.
So it will become an unending cicle until we have reached a technological status where many ( not most millions of people still would be needed in the economy ) jobs will become obsoled because machines could do them.
And this is the main problem with thouse people , they can't and don't want to see the whole picture , only the bits and pieces that support their claims.And thats why they should never be allowed to have power.
Hence, the half century old Democrat party "War On Poverty", which has done nothing to eliminate poverty in this country, but instead created a growing welfare state through redistribution of wealth. Billions have been funneled into this program, while the numbers of impoverished continue to grow, falsely justifying that even more money should be used to combat this "ever growing evil." History has repeatedly shown that poverty decreases with a growing economy.
Name how many people you know personally who were born poor and became rich through their own initiative. I bet that number is zero. The vast majority of the rich were born rich and are rich because they are part of an oligarchy. Social "mobility" is a myth.
There are no government "handouts", another myth. Banks, corporations, and billionaires get way more in handouts than the "poor".
***** So then why is Social Security, medicare, and medicaid 42 percent of discretionary spending? Those are all handouts.
I used to consider myself social justice warrior because I do champion social justice. But no longer do I see myself as of them, nor associate myself with those people. They are bigots and racists. Pure and simple. If you're a white, straight male, to them you are worse than Hitler. I am gay and also appalled by their bigotry. Sadly, the social justice crowd is only making the far right increase, as we have been witnessing in many European countries and also in the US. I do not think it's a bad thing, though. I still lean towards the left, but a reasonable left, not a totalitarian one ready to kill all white or straight people.
very true they are very bigoted people who are garbage. but I disagree with the fact they right wings are increasing . they are declining the word is slowing becoming a lefty
+Gary Maravich so your friends aren't racist just fools
this this
And the reason you still, "lean towards the left" is???? Peer-pressure?
Um, not to sound like an SJW, but Hitler was a straight white male, so how could you be worse than Hitler if Hitler was a straight white male?
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)
Brilliant!
Wow!!! 😮
Absolutely! The Religious Cult of Social Justice:
Fascism, Communism and, yes, this Social Justice ideology, are all dangerous religion-replacing religions. Traditional religious belief in the West - and its commitment to Biblical principles - is rapidly eroding.
Contrary to the ‘New Atheists’, religious belief isn’t irrational, it’s non-rational. It’s a commitment of faith. The commitments of the Secular Humanists -contrary to their ad-campaigns - are equally grounded in belief, not reason. I happen to share many of their moral commitments. This is not accidental. If I’m right, their moral views are an unacknowledged legacy of the Judeo-Christian world view.
As the philosopher David Hume argued as far back as the 18th century, there is no rationally compelling argument that gets you from an observation of the world to a conclusion about what you should do. What is, simply is. What you should do is grounded in your value preferences. In other words, you can’t make claims about ‘what ought to be’ based on observations about what is. This is known as “the fact/ value” distinction.
Now, in our everyday world, we make these sorts of claims all the time. They work - to the extent they do - because, at least in the West, there is a broad agreement on basic underlying values. (As noted above, these orienting values are however rapidly eroding as a result of social justice ideology. This is seriously undermining social cohesion.)
The New Atheists make an abundance of value claims. These are disguised as rational deductions based on impartial observation. These are claims about what we, as moral agents, should do. This is moral commitment. Scientific observation and rational reflection just doesn’t get you there.
For the New Atheist, rational reflection alone should deliver a commitment to human dignity. How is it that Stalin, Mao and Hitler all failed to recognized the truth of secular humanism…? They knew their policies would produce millions of deaths and mass suffering. They just didn’t care. They made observations of the world but had very different value preferences. Their moral commitments were elsewhere.
Each was, in their own way, following Nietzsche. Nietzsche recognized that absent a belief in a Biblical God, Christian morality (and with it, the principle of the intrinsic dignity of the individual) was radically untethered to observations of the world. We were free to posit ‘alternative’ moral values…
For Hitler, the National Socialist, the sick and the weak were a strain on national strength and racial purity . Sympathy towards them was nothing less than moral cowardice… And thus, the eugenics program. (By the way, he received his inspiration from liberal “progressives” of the day.). The Socialists, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, et al, believed their duty was to history and humanity. The individual meant absolutely nothing and so, about 100, 000, 000 individuals were casually sacrificed for the sake of the greater good.
Notwithstanding the universality of religious belief, religions are not equal in their commitments or moral consequences. How, if a religious commitment isn’t grounded in reason or science, can we make judgements as to its worth? For the atheists out there my apologies, but I think the Bible has it exactly right: “You will know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7;15-20 NKJV). A fundamental principle in Judeo-Christianity is that all people have equal moral worth.
Buddhism? The sick and the suffering are sick and suffering as a consequence of their misdeeds, either in this life or their last. Hinduism? You are assigned, at birth, into a ridged caste, a fixed moral hierarchy. Some people are considered literally “untouchable” and, yes, the moral consequences are appalling. In Islam, your moral worth is predicated upon your membership in the Umma, the Islamic family of faith.
And Social Justice? What have they given us? Their fruits, as we shall see, are all poisonous. The Biblical tradition? It has given rise to human rights, the rule of law, democracy and unparalleled prosperity. Faith in the Judeo-Christian tradition couldn’t be more well placed. We all need to believe in something. This is where I stand.
The rise of the Social Justice movement and the horrors of Fascism and Communism suggest that atheism just doesn’t scale.
Hope you’ll check out my book “Deconstructing Social Justice”. I systematically dismantle the lies and misrepresentations of this cultural Marxism.
Conservatives accused of fascism…?
Nonsense.
Fascism and its racialized expression, Nazism, were, from the beginning, socialist:
Hitler was, most definitely, a socialist. It’s right there in the name: “The National Socialist German Worker’s Party”, a.k.a. The Nazi Party.
Following the example of Mussolini, Hitler fused socialism with nationalism.
Although founding the Fascist Party, Mussolini was formerly a revolutionary socialist. Rather than fighting for socialism on a global scale, like the Communist internationalists, Mussolini wanted a national socialism. Hitler followed this inspiration.
Here’s one of countless examples of Hitler declaring his commitment to Socialism:
“We are socialists. We are the enemies of today’s capitalistic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions” ( Adolf Hitler, Public speech, Munich, 1 May 1927. Quoted from Toland, J. Adolf Hitler, 1976, p. 306 (Toland, 1976)
It’s leftists authoritarianism that is the threat here, not conservatives. They want to conserve our rights and freedoms. It’s right there in the name, Conservatives.
Hope you’ll check out my book “Deconstructing Social Justice”. If you want insight into what is really going on, this is the book for you.
Summarized in one word: Cancer.
you need to get cancer just so you can have your big government pay for it
You call democratic values and same rights and opportunities cancer?
zentraler Demokrat No, Communism and racism/sexism towards "privileged people".
Alright...
@@einfrankfurter3520 i assume ur german cause of ur name... lol
this is AMERICA... we bible thump here... we are the most fanatical religious nation of the western world...
RED RIGHT REPUBLICANS = RELIGION
they really dont believe in separation of church and state despite what they say.. they wont even vote for an atheist...
REPUBLICAN AS A WHOLE.. WILL NOT VOTE FOR AN ATHEIST... they are too religious too...
this Right vs LEFT.. in reality if u boil away all the bs... its RELIGION/CHRISTIANITY vs Secularism/evolution/science
to further show this.. one is about controlling human sexual behaviors.. especially women.. while the latter is about accepting and embracing it.. which clearly god would not support.. lmao
same right same opportunities etc.. arent really the issue... the real issue is religion is in decline.. more and more laws became less and less religious influenced... and to reinstate and pass even more laws with more religious influences into those laws and policies... america voted the way they did... and they use fear mongering.. especially how society and family values are under threat.. etc.. literally see this is cause tehy feel their "tradition religious" way of life is under attack and the refuse to "evolve" they DO NOT WANT CHANGE.. change is bad..
so democratic values.. because they come from a more secular party are seen as bad/cancer... cause again dems believe in separation of church and state.. though i would argue dems arent as good at it as Europeans... particularly germans... lol
its also why half of america.. REPUBLICANS/RED/RIGHT dont really like europeans.. by that i mean.. they think Europeans are destroying their own society... especially women.. lmao... women this women that... i bet they would beat women with bibles if they could.. thank "god" for secularist atheists humanism etc
the rights world view is that basic religious apocalyptic end of the world type of bs..
"Social Justice" is but one way where H. L. Mencken was right.
"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule it."
Conservatives accused of fascism…?
Nonsense.
Fascism and its racialized expression, Nazism, were, from the beginning, socialist:
Hitler was, most definitely, a socialist. It’s right there in the name: “The National Socialist German Worker’s Party”, a.k.a. The Nazi Party.
Following the example of Mussolini, Hitler fused socialism with nationalism.
Although founding the Fascist Party, Mussolini was formerly a revolutionary socialist. Rather than fighting for socialism on a global scale, like the Communist internationalists, Mussolini wanted a national socialism. Hitler followed this inspiration.
Here’s one of countless examples of Hitler declaring his commitment to Socialism:
“We are socialists. We are the enemies of today’s capitalistic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions” ( Adolf Hitler, Public speech, Munich, 1 May 1927. Quoted from Toland, J. Adolf Hitler, 1976, p. 306 (Toland, 1976)
It’s leftists authoritarianism that is the threat here, not conservatives. They want to conserve our rights and freedoms. It’s right there in the name, Conservatives.
Hope you’ll check out my book “Deconstructing Social Justice”. If you want insight into what is really going on, this is the book for you.
I mean, are you an anarchist? If not then you probably think there should be some sort of government. O but dont humans fight over it.
@@HalasterBlackCloak-u2w Of course people fight over it.
What do you think elections wind up entailing?
"Social justice" is what people on certain social media scream when triggered by anything that they don't like.
Perhaps a better definition of Social Justice is "Just Us deciding what constitutes Justice."
Absolutely! Conservatives accused of fascism…?
Nonsense.
Fascism and its racialized expression, Nazism, were, from the beginning, socialist:
Hitler was, most definitely, a socialist. It’s right there in the name: “The National Socialist German Worker’s Party”, a.k.a. The Nazi Party.
Following the example of Mussolini, Hitler fused socialism with nationalism.
Although founding the Fascist Party, Mussolini was formerly a revolutionary socialist. Rather than fighting for socialism on a global scale, like the Communist internationalists, Mussolini wanted a national socialism. Hitler followed this inspiration.
Here’s one of countless examples of Hitler declaring his commitment to Socialism:
“We are socialists. We are the enemies of today’s capitalistic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions” ( Adolf Hitler, Public speech, Munich, 1 May 1927. Quoted from Toland, J. Adolf Hitler, 1976, p. 306 (Toland, 1976)
It’s leftists authoritarianism that is the threat here, not conservatives. They want to conserve our rights and freedoms. It’s right there in the name, Conservatives.
Hope you’ll check out my book “Deconstructing Social Justice”. If you want insight into what is really going on, this is the book for you.
So according to this dude, inequality is no biggie. Wall Street dudes winning millions everyday while others are homeless right under their feet is a fact totally devoid of moral necessity, the only thing that we should care is that the Wall Street big boy gets his own and his private property be protected and respected. That's the important thing here.
Really. The tone-deafness of this video is astounding.
The video clearly states the term 'social justice' is meaningless. And you seem to be implying that he is advocating stealing from the poor. Not so. He is advocating not stealing from ANYBODY. The most equal society is simply one where people get to keep what they've earned. Being forced by government to give up a larger slice of what is yours than others is theft. But note, the outcome of such a society will ALWAYS be that some will be rich and others poor, just like some can run faster than others. This would not make society inherently unfair. All you have is the sin of envy.
I just love the simpletons with the boring talking points. They haven't read a book yet apparently. When the biggest federal stimulus housing plan collapsed with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government housing agencies. Our enlightened progressives still believe America has "unabridged" capitalism. Let's see, every single citizen in America breaks multiple federal laws per day when there are over 2 million. How's that for regulation? Still not enough.
America has one of the most progressive tax regimes in the world. Enlightened liberals aren't even aware of that: taxfoundation.org/blog/news-obama-oecd-says-united-states-has-most-progressive-tax-system
washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/05/americas-taxes-are-the-most-progressive-in-the-world-its-government-is-among-the-least/
They still dismiss the concerns toward the catastrophic size of the government and it's results. The health insurance out of control when these heads basically decided that insurance companies should pay for everything but officials should also make sure it stays cheap.
Welcome to progressive Amerika where the government spends more on education per capita than any other country. Providing a service below the 20th worldwide. Government spending is at $4,437 per person in health care only behind Luxembourg and Monaco, but 38th worldwide. A joke with the biggest deficit, external debt per capita and unfunded liabilities in pensions ever seen in history, sadly.
Let's see, also 60% of college attendees borrowing loans annually to help cover the costs. These are available through private lending institutions which are under the Federal Family Education Loan Program. Public program funded by the federal government and administered by approved private lending organizations. Loans are underwritten and guaranteed by the government ensuring that the private sector would assume no risk should borrowers ultimately default. By 2020, the burden would be of 225 Billions. Thanks government for stimulating another bubble in college fees and putting those kids into debt.
A government that reduced poverty 4% in 50 years whereas countries like China took 74% of the population in 25, without any social net in place and destroying it's own currency/subsidizing Americans on top of it lol. Even if America's dollar possess a monopoly as world's reserve currency and oil (liberals should worship their savior the petrodollar). And they subsidize everything from the NFL to random dictatorships around the world and corporations like Monsanto. So very much capitalistic indeed.
Also a high corporate income tax.
[The U.S corporate income tax rate is approximately 40%. The marginal federal corporate income tax rate on the highest income bracket of corporations is 35%. State and local governments may also impose income taxes ranging from 0% to 12%, the top marginal rates averaging approximately 7.5%. A corporation may deduct its state and local income tax expense when computing its federal taxable income, generally resulting in a net effective rate of approximately 40%. The effective rate may vary significantly depending on the locality in which a corporation conducts business.]
kpmg.com/global/en/services/tax/tax-tools-and-resources/pages/corporate-tax-rates-table.aspx
A really high percentage of people working for the government.
governing.com/news/state/2010-census-public-employees-workforce-among-states.html
becker-posner-blog.com/2011/09/too-many-government-workersposner.html
And it turns out that actually, 58% of all Americans derive all or nearly all of their livelihood from the government. Somebody would prefer to talk only about the slice of government workers who are actually hired as full time government employees allowing him to use a % while ignoring the other % who make nearly all of their income from government. But that person would be knowingly leaving this bit out or not even aware of how the system works. The U.S government is basically one the largest employers on the planet. Military personel, private contractors, pensioners and veterans (retired govenrment workers drawing a government pension), Social Security Recipients and Low Income Housing benificiaries.
Also, all the federal personal income tax is coming from the rich top 1% who "don't pay their fair share(sic)" and -9% from the poor... Obviously they also pay more on payroll tax, state income tax, sales tax, property tax, excise taxes, etc both in absolute terms and as percentage of income.
Liberals #LeftWingNutJobs #IamWithStupid
***** To blame the current state of affairs in american education on the State is not just bizarre, it's an outright lie. Most countries ahead of the US in those same charts are *way* more socialistic in the education sector than any american can even dream of.
Your whole rant is filled with the same sort of blindness that is the end result if you only balkanize your own sources of information from the same ideological backgrounds, without even trying to listen to the other side.
To state that the US tax system is the "most progressive in the world" may well be technically true, but it doesn't take into account what is lacking in the US that other countries take for granted, like universalized health care for instance. This is the sort of statistical bullshit that can only come from ideological bullshitters that you should stray away from (be them from the left or the right).
The very very rich have never paid so little in their share, and never had so much like today. They buy politicians, they buy the laws that govern you to favor them. But here you are, shilling for them. Jesus F Christ.
logofreetv I like you man. You're cool in my book.
logofreetv "Being forced to give up" - that's called stealing, and that's exactly what it is. Stealing from citizen A and giving to citizens B and C because the thief has been given the power to do so by B and C. If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul's vote.
So when I get mugged- it will be an act of social justice.
Those self-proclaimed messiahs who lecture us in "social justice" doesn't care about ending poverty, they want to end wealth. If everyone in the world was poor, they wouldn't care, what kills them with outraged is the fact that some have wealth. These self-proclaimed messiahs really want to level everyone to poverty and mediocrity. That's why they advocate lowering admission standard in college based on your ethnic group, giving everyone a passing grade for just showing up etc. I came to the conclusion that socialism and archaeo-marxism is a religion base on a political ideology. That political ideology is utopia.
8 years later and this shit rings true. I have a professor who says that people need to give things up so everyone can be happy and the fact that people get defensive or fight against things being taken away from them proves that social justice is "doing its job". She's a maniac
As I listen to this and read the comments I find that I have been lacking for my definition on this subject. Thank you one and all for helping me to more clearly grasp the concept of adding to the word "Justice".
Social justice is another word for injustice.
And it's used by the left and for left-wing causes only.
Social justice- n. The act of being offended by something that doesn't really offend you.
The skill* of taking offense to anything that might be construed as offensive to someone, somewhere.
Nah it seems like they really are offended...
*at everything 😑
I've met plenty of people who talk about the need for "social justice" but every time the subject is brought up I always point out I've never met anyone who said they're in favor of social *in*-justice.
Most of these "modern women" tend to be the Sandra Fluke style ugly chicks. Yeah, you can get laid easily, but only if you *drastically* lower your standards.
9 years and this held up? Gee. Sorry, but that's a pretty simplet thing to point out. It'S like saying the absence of water is a fire.
Not everything has a plain, diametrically opposed contrary.
The absence or lack of justice, lack of equity in society is sufficient to motivate the desire or need, or feel of a need of social justice, whether you believe it's an actual lack or a thing fed by left propaganda. You don't need to have ''pro injustice'' people marching in the streets.
Social Justice is a fancy description of totalitarianism.
Well as a conservative I agree with much of what Mr. Goldberg is saying. However there is a deeper meaning to these issues than simply insisting that the government is responsible for Social Justice, and that Social Justice as a greater concept should be opposed. There is a basic human desire to see positive change in the lives of other people that transcends beyond social compact, left vs. right philosophy. And conservatives like me feel compelled to participate in the free market system to offer greater value thereby helping to create a path of upward mobility for others than simply earning a profit. If I lived in the South during the Civil Rights movement, I undoubtedly would have marched for change. But I would have resisted Federal mandates to enforce change. In other words the change must come from within and those who argue for change should enjoy every right to call for change.
What Mr. Goldberg should have included in his presentation was that concepts under the banner of Social Justice are the responsibility of the individual. Individuals who are compelled to want change must participate in bringing change. Society evolves not from the creation and perfection of government programs, but from the enlightenment of society.
A free society isn't very free if the producers in society impose economic limitations on consumers and workers simply because they are free to do so. Society needs counter-balances, competition, and choices. While government should be used sparingly in such endeavors, I would be the first to endorse any law that protects consumers from fraud, workers from harmful working conditions, full and complete enfranchisement including the right to unions, and prevent industries from monopolistic and anti-competitive practices that harm economic growth. In a different era, these issues might have fallen under the banner of "Social Justice".
Social Justice is the idea that justice is better served to the populace when based upon meaningless factor such as race or social class and the results of decisions are then applied to the populace on the basis of race and social class. This is of course, in direct violation of the rights of the individual and scientific fact.
You can have several interpretation of what "Social justice" is, contrary to what the twat in the video says, there is even a libertarian one, and it is perfectly normal ! Every democratic capitalistic society must be perceived by it's member as somehow just. The most obvious factor, and actually the only one in use is earning. Do you not think it is abnormal that some people could earn in a year more than you'd gain your ENTIRE LIFE, while other can barely feed and cloth themselfes ? At some point you don't even need more money, but you know who else does ? Your state who has to compensate this massive deficit, or those households that survive on extremely unhealthy food and can't hope to provide decent education to it's children.
LaFlammeAzure You are falling victim to the old equality of results vs. freedom argument. You believe that all people should be guaranteed a minimal level of success in life, sadly, that is not reality, nor is it nature's design. Now, there are plenty of rich people in this world, but do you know how their wealth is generally held? It is held in stock of companies, well, the part that isn't held in massive estates is generally held in stock portfolios. These people are using their wealth to invest in businesses which create jobs and employ the world. Sure, you can find wealthy families that inbreed and maintain their vast fortunes gained through deception and outright lying, (I'm looking at your Rothschild's, Bush's, and all the people involved in the military industrial complex) but many earn their fortunes through hard work and revolutionary ideas backed by a consumer base of millions or tens of millions.
BTW, I never gave the state the right to use myself as collateral for debt, so you can pound sand if you expect me to act as a slave and pay back the debt incurred by this gov't.
Society is what we make of it, so excuse me if I disagree with your concepts of "reality" and "natural design" If an individual earns several billions a year and an entity (the state) forces him to share some of it with people who can barely feed and cloth themselves, who do you think is the greedy one ?
Now indeed the wealthiest people hold most of their wealth in stock, and you know what's great about stock ? You don't have to work to earn your living if you have a large number of them. Take the Walton family, foundator of walmart Sam Walton's wife and children and among the richest people in USA, and in the world. They own Walmart, and all their shares have been directly inherited from their husband/father, they earn more in year than you will in your entire life, that hardly seems fair considering they are not the hardworking visionnair you speak of. Basically their job consist of paying people to take care of the management of business, who are the lazy people now ?
On another point, yes investment is good and necessary, but so is consumption, you need to strike a balance, you cannot say, the richer the rich, the better, consumption makes an economy go round, more so than investment.
i do not believe we could (and should) ever creat a world without inequality, but I do think those should be reduced so the poorest can live decent lives and that workers, business owners and shareholders receive a fair share of the economic growth they all contribute to create
Finally, about national debt, that might sound astounding to you, but yes, you and your compatriots are partly, but directly responsible for it, why do you think America owes so much to China ? That's because they procuce all the manufactured goods YOU consume. Saying the national debt is only the state affair and that you have nothing to do with it is outright selfish and false, because YOU are collectively responsible for it and YOU will be the ones affected by it.
USA spends a shit ton of money on military to protect it's interest and it's people, it's interest are YOUR interest (mostly) and it's people is, you guessed it, you. When the states spends billions to sustain it's economy, it is to safeguard your jobs and your business.
BTW any business you might create and thrive to see succeed is somehow allowed by convenient and indulgent laws and dispositon the state has arranged. Steve Jobs wouldn't have created Apple and made fortune if he had moved to China when he was 6.
LaFlammeAzure You seem pretty sure about your Keynsian ideas. Consumption does not create wealth. Nor does it serve to spread it around. The individual creation of wealth comes from a person using their own time and abilities to better their own situation. Some people know how to harness this ability of others to make themselves rich. Such as the Waltons that you speak of. But face it, most Wal-Mart employees would not be able to make as much from their own labor if they were guiding their own actions. I see them all the time. They are hardly able to operate their registers or organize a home goods shelf. They have little to no skills and even less ambition. The fact that the Walton family runs a business that utilizes these people to effectively run a multi-billion if not a trillion dollar enterprise is quite amazing to me.
Still, I can see where you are coming from claiming that this is inequality and an unjust system. For years I thought about creating a non-profit company that hired, trained, housed, fed, and provided medical treatment for the homeless. Then I came to the realization that homeless people are homeless because they don't want to do anything meaningful with their lives. They have no hope of doing better for themselves or those around them and even if you gave them everything they needed and then some, they wouldn't work for you.
dlstb
"I never gave the state the right to use myself as collateral for debt, so you can pound sand if you expect me to act as a slave and pay back the debt incurred by this gov't."
You never signed off on the construction of the roads or the schools that taught you or the electrical grid that gave you light; but you used it all didn't you dumbass? Unless you're planning on overthrowing the federal gov't you have 3 options; pay your taxes, go to jail or find another country.
Hello! I'm a white, rich, hetero wealth guy, and i'm here to talk about Social Justice!
Working in law enforcement I felt that social justice meant justice for everyone. I felt that once someone calls 911 whether theyre liberal or conservative, black or white doesnt matter. I also though government aid being redistributed to some of our lowest income states was a good thing. As a republican living in a blue state with one the highest median incomes MD $75,000 I always thought poverty in conservative states was often overlooked. Seeing how the top 3 states with highest federal aid money were all red states MS 45% LA 44 % TN 41% in 2012 I didnt realize I was part of the problem. I'll keep that in mind next time someone brings that up, I wouldnt mind more government taxes staying here at home.
Social justice is taking money from producers by the state. Then, giving that money to people who refuse to work. This is enforced by the power of the state to tax and imprison people.
Capitalism is taking money from the producers.
Andrew Johnson How so?
Capitalism expropriates the value created by laborers to produce something called "profit" for the owning class.
Andrew Johnson Become an owner of a company.
That's a naturally limited field. There always have to be more producers than capitalists, or the capitalists won't have anything to leech from the producers.
That's one of the biggest ironies: the same people who claim (falsely) that Conservatives are trying to "impose" our beliefs and the like on others are themselves far more guilty of it.
Social justice to me, is not that everyone is economically equal, but that everyone has the opportunity to be economically equal. This is just impossible though.
That's what Jonh Rawls calls equity.
Joao Castro You're right. It should be that everyone has equal opportunity, to make the income in which they work for.
how liberals should be....
Violet Tippet with free education we’re much closer to equal opportunity
Hi Violet, everyone gets 12 years of free public education, and if you study hard and get good grades, you will succeed. What the left really dislikes is that some people are smarter and work harder than others, thus are more successful.
You must be fun at parties.
What an intelligent response
You must be the guy who gets minimum wage and complains about not getting enough money to afford to go to a party
+ducky guy different parties m8
Hahaha that’s a good one
My definition of "Social Justice" is simply "Socialism". It doesn't get simplier than that.
"Those who give up freedom for security shall have neither" -Ben Franklin"When people fear the government, there is tyranny but when the government fear the people, you have liberty" -Thomas Jefferson
Me: "What is social justice?" SJW Friends: "Wow, you're a racist."
r/thathappened
social justice means there is no individual justice.
I have heard some Christian denominations talk about Jesus & social justice. But I have never been able to find the term in any of the Gospels. Neither do I see it exemplified. I doubt it has anything to do with loving your neighbor. And that is because what love gives willingly, social justice seems to take via coercion. Charity is obligatory for Muslims, & all those non-Muslims who live in Muslim majority nations, according to sharia. However, once it becomes an obligation, it is no longer charitable.
here read this
christianity completely flies in the face of social justice
www.gotquestions.org/Bible-favoritism.html
B. Aaron von Hagen social justice is all about favoritism. they favor the poor at the expense of the rich. the bible says do not favor the poor in judgement even thought that is exactly what social justice does
B. Aaron von Hagen could you ask that question again. im sorry i do not understand
Wayne Ekeh There shouldn't ever be rich christians though.
vdlluca Seems to go against the teachings in the bible. Also, I suggest you read upon the medieval church. They were basically the central government of Europe and had plenty of fun scandals involving violence, buying the papacy, 2 papacies at once and massive hidden papal vaults.
Anytime you limit a universal term like "justice" with an adjective like "social" you have diluted and restricted it, not expanded upon it. Plain old fashioned ordinary justice is what we need.
Civil rights?
The idea behind the name Social Justice is to insert the concept into any argument that inequality of outcome is NOT JUST.
Hayek, Friedman, Sowell - the biggest minds of modern economy.
Hillary Clinton:Would you rather your child have cancer or feminism(aka Social Justice)
Me at home watching on tv:What's the difference
That quote about people believing in absolute truth being an enemy of social Justice blew my mind. I thought it was going in a totally different direction but holy shit how does that quote even exist.
Looking back, it's amazing how much public sentiment of social justice has changed since 2014. These days even my liberal friends have grown disdained from the term social justice. This gave me some hope for humanity.
What is Social Justice? A lie.
America, dangerous times are ahead of us.
This one I love. I'm dirt poor. But I know the kind of people they are talking about when it comes to the "have nots". What differentiates me is that I don't want a piece of someone else's pie. I want my own. I just have to learn how to make one.
Many statist terms are like this. The 'social contract' is the opposite of a contract in the same way. The state loves doublethink.
Yes,you can only enter a contract as a free and sane adult individual with your consent.A social contract was never presented to me to sign-it's an oxymoronic term.
Nick Hanlon Here's the worst bit: a contract implies 'consideration' on the part of both parties.
I.e. If I owe something to society then society also owes me something in return.
We're not even getting that part right.
Nick Hanlon
The moment you're of age to consent you can leave and go somewhere else. No society is going to operate based on the idea that you can opt out of the legal framework voluntarily.
'Social Justice' is just another term for 'revenge'.
this is the single best explanation of the irony within claiming "social justice" for a "free and equal society"
The word "equal" is different from "equitable" and the latter is a main motivation for proponents of social justice. To be fair, not all Americans are really created equal. Who are we kidding?
@@lsour8546 the phrase was meant in the sense that we all have the same rights and should be judged the same under the law. It was never implying that we all have the same health, personality traits (like conscientiousness), etc
Which is fundamentally in opposition to equity which focuses strongly on our differences and aims to give people unique considerations and privileges depending on their identity.
the state amassing power is never a good thing
2.1k SJW troll accounts disliked the video.
Question: What is Social Justice?
Answer: Cancer
Social justice = fight to achieve your goal using someone else money
We often call something the opposite of what it is to emphasize what it’s not.
”The road to hell is paved with good intentions”
Economic redistribution is an essential part of a just society.
When a family has a baby do they say, "Sorry, no food for you; you didn't earn it." Of course not. The haves (the parents) give to the child.
It IS a serious mistake to assume the government can or should be the primary redistributor of wealth. Family, employers paying employees, inheritance, and charitable gifts are all valid forms of wealth redistribution. Further, failure to do so (as we are currently failing, BTW) creates social injustice and the resulting social disorder.
That is the most condescending thing I've heard in a very long time. The idea that the government is like a parent and the people are the children... Your true colors are showing
CaptainBraxxton
I didn't assume that. In fact I implied the opposite. Government is not the best redistributor of wealth.
But government makes the laws. Those laws can favor various other means of wealth distribution. Or they can collect all the power centrally (which seems to be a popular trend).
Laws can support families, or oppose them. Laws can support workers getting fair wages, or encourage slavery. Laws can encourage religious institutions and voluntary giving or tax such things out of existence.
The government exists. Laws exist. Will we make them wise, or pretend we don't have a choice?
All the people who you want to redistribute my "wealth" to aren't my baby and I'm not responsible for their very existence. I don't owe them breakfast lunch and dinner + housing, clothing,free money, etc. I have no problem with sharing what I can or FEEL LIKE. That's my decision though. Funny how all the grandiose ideas of the left are to be paid for by someone else. Every liberal I know thinks their taxes should be zero though, as if they already paid with good intentions. Textbook cognitive dissonance.
Rainboworafish
I'm a conservative. I believe the government and economy exist to serve people.
The philosophy that a person isn't in any way responsible for other people went out with the agricultural revolution. Since then people have specialized in their work. That means trade or theft.
People who trade are concerned with providing a fair (i.e. social justice) framework for the trades. Theft, not so much.
Ideally people would share equally in profits. But of course that never happens. The haves arrange the system to favor themselves and workers get a subsistence level wage. At least they do until some misfortune knocks them out of competition (and their lives if there's no safety net).
Since 1970 worker productivity has more than doubled. Real wages have gone down. That means people are getting paid less than 1/2 the value of their work.
Redistribution of wealth is happening. Wealth is being taken from the working poor and "given" (taken, not earned) to the very wealthy. That is not how old style conservatives want the system to work. It is how too many modern conservatives think.
Taking unearned wealth is theft. Sure a wealthy guy can buy a senator to make it legal, but it is still immoral.
Social justice types feel the problem and try to fix it with simple solutions. While there are better solutions, they are blocked by the rich with their pocket senators. This allows other rich people to pander to the unreasoned anger of the workers and steal even more from them.
No man is an island.
Jeff Rosenbury "Ideally people would share equally in profits."
That's called ideal communism. Except, that's not what the ideal is. Here is the issue: Entrepreneurs take risks and invest in a business to try to make it work. When they hire employees, they do not share in that risk. Employees get paid no matter how bad the business is going. If profits sink 50% in one month, the employees still need to be paid their full amount. The fact is, becoming an employee is not a risk. You agree upon a set wage with your employer and expect to be paid just that.
Now on the other hand, if you were a business partner, meaning you owned part of the business, then you would share the profits according to your contract. But, you would also share the losses. You might even be personally responsible for paying a percent of the debts if the business goes up in flames.
Of course taking unearned wealth is theft, but the definition of "earn" bears no preference to your personal opinion. If Walmart wants to pay their CEO 25+ million dollars, it's their business. If you hate their business, stop buying from them and then rally others together to stop buying from them. Boycott them and tell them that if they don't change their ways you won't buy from them or work for them anymore. Stop thinking about how to take money from other people's pockets that they earned, whether you feel they deserve it or not, and start using your personal freedoms to inspire change.
one word: cancer
So what does this guy propose? Free market greed, what else!
What are you proposing, taking of all our freedoms and wealth? The USSR and Mao's China are the ultimate form of the state intervening. Hundreds of millions died in the 20th century just from these two states killing their own people who stood in the way of governmental progress.
Free Market? There hasn't been one since the sixties in the West. What we have now is corporatism. That is not a free market in any sense.
Unfortunately, your comment is a testament to your ignorance of free market economics. You can remedy that by doing some reading about free market economics from any economist from the Austrian school. Since this is only a five and a half minute video, Jonah Goldberg did not touch on how a free market economy can remedy many of the problems (mostly created by government intervention) that plague our society. A free market economy is not a utopian ideal, but it is the most moral system. It is based on voluntary exchange.
Spoken like a true communist...
***** That is greed. It's also greed to feel entitled to the earnings of others , and that others should pay for what you cannot.
Not cronyism.
Alright, good speech. Can we talk about the term "freedom" then please?
You have the exact same dilemma, because everybody imposes something else with that term and no it is definately not "absence of law".
And it's the oh so important value we lose through social justice?
Again good speech!
Just watched a commercial during the Super Bowl, touting the NFL's commitment to "social justice" and had to figure out what the hell they're talking about.
It's not your money, it's your CEO's money, and the others who get paid 100 times plus what you make for sitting behind a desk "managing" from a distance.
Theft? Taxes&financial aid are legal. How about you go report your money as stolen by Obama to your local police, and see what they do about it.
Managing from a distance behind a desk is still doing something even though its way over rated, overly exaggerated and unjustifyably compensated. There are those that do nothing but own and hoard and still manage to make a killing by collecting royalty, dividen, rental and capaital gain.
You do not have to work for a CEO. But you do have to work for the govt. Do you know how many millionaires there are in Congress?
Many of the Congress members and Senate members currently or used to work for huge, established companies with large lobbies, so many would already be extremely wealthy.
Wal-Marts CEO makes 800 times the median wage of the company. Which wouldn't bug me as much if most Wal-Mart employees weren't also on welfare due to their terrible pay. Subsidizing big box store wages via welfare and they still screw over their employees at every opportunity to make their bottom line look better to share holders.
Lets not even talk about what this does to small businesses.
I see your point. Obviously the language surrounding politics frequently lacks a coherent definition, and when it is defined, it sometimes creates a dichotomy between "good" and "bad." However, it's a semantic argument, that applies to just about any form of political speak in our language. And it doesn't speak to the real economic issues facing the international political economy. In similar ways, the libertarian message lacks any real-world application, as it is based primarily upon what a person or a group of people think are just policies, regardless of their effect on international markets or local spending power. The left has largely abandoned Communism, and their hopes for a utopian world of total financial and economic equality. It is neo-liberal economics that acknowledges the limited good a totally unregulated market can deliver to participants. For example, the United States is known for its consumption of consumer goods like textiles, agricultural commodities, and technology. If we can really look at wealth distribution in the United States and see an accelerating trend of market polarity, wherein fewer people have an exponentially larger share of ownership of the market, then it presents a problem, in that consumers can no longer afford to consume. More people cannot afford a descent education. Fewer people have access to essential health services. Those two problems alone have a detrimental effect on the long-term success of the American economy. So I think there is a point to be made that while liberals frequently employ language that lacks a coherent meaning, libertarians employ ideologies that ignore the history of the international economy, favoring instead ideologically based notions of liberty and freedom (Which also lack a coherent meaning).
I do at least agree with your negative assessment of the quality of education. Your misspelling of "decent" as "descent" (ironically enough denoting a decline) illustrates the point at least as well as any argument you may articulate for it.
Rick Goodin Really got me there! www.shedfire.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/asshat_conventi_2.jpg
We are not equal. We should stop trying to strive for equality. Some people are born with skills others don't have. Some skills are learned and others aren't able to or decide not to learn them. We will never have a completely equal society EVEN IF we strove for a purely socialist America (which is a scary thought to me personally). The system in which we have the greatest opportunity to achieve equality IS the free-market system whether you would like to believe that or not. I'm tired of hearing that we should strive to be more like Canada, the UK, France, Russia, etc, etc. This is ridiculous, we are not perfect but we are the best thing going for the planet Earth. The sand that grinds up the cogs of capitalism and that makes the free-market less efficient is redistribution-of-wealth social policies. We can try to steal from the rich to pay for the poor but the rich don't end up paying because they make the rules. Social policies only hurt the middle and lower classes, more so the lower class and that's a proven fact. The period in American history in which Americans described themselves as the most equal was in the late 1800's and early 1900's when our society was free of 'steal from all' in the interest of the poor programs, that came shortly thereafter. Interestingly enough, that same time period was filled with overwhelming charity, philanthropy, and opportunity never again experienced here on Earth. The social programs that were designed to help the poor only serve to grow our federal government and create widening disparity in the income of Americans.
Galen M“A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.”
Galen M Who said anything about equality? I'm talking about sensible economics. Again, an example of how the new breed of tea-party republicans would rather quote the founding fathers or talk about ideology than discuss the reality of the market.
Honestly this is incredibly interesting. The most ironic part of this is that is that the comments under this video are an echo chamber, but the idea is that all people on the left think the same. I implore people on both sides to think critically. Just because someone calls themselves a Univeristy doesn't make it such. Propaganda is propaganda...
OH YOU CAN'T THINK CRITICALLY. NO THINKING CRITICALLY. THAT'S FORBIDDEN!!!
Pardon my attempted sarcasm. To think " critically" these days gets you accused of being " marxist" and possibly verbally accosted at a school board meeting. AND accused of hating all white people because they are white.
Here I have a definition of social justice: to give every human being the real possibilities of economic, social, political, and cultural growth in the short term without being restricted by the economic, social, political, and cultural conditions inherited by others.
Many will say this isn't good enough. Its not enough to give people opportunities. As the UN states, it must involve an attempted correction of outcomes using strong government forces.
So if for example you get sick and are unable to work for a few years. Its not enough to help you have the opportunity to bounce back from that. But rather the govt should take from those who didn't to make your bank account more similar to them.
So where a conservative might want govt getting in the way of markets to allow you job opportunities, and a liberal would want govt programs to help you get back on your feet, a social justice leftist might focus on trying to undo the past by paying you money you weren't able to earn previously.
@@lightfeather9953 trying to undo the past by paying you money you weren't able to earn previously its a discussion almost exclusive to the United States. In the rest of the world, we are more intrested in other forms of real oportunities.
muh social justice!
Due to different people seeing the world differently, everybody has their own Justice.
Got a subscribe for this one -- very good presentation!
I think that requires cloning.
www.vh1.com/celebrity/bwe/images/2011/09/Repet-1316019662.jpg
*****
Republic comes from the Latin res publica, interest of the public.
Leading pretty quickly to the motto in the first Tron movie: They de-ressed him.
puppetsock just saw this. No. Derezzing was "Deresolution", or a total breakdown of a program's code and shell, essentially deleting or killing them. And yes, republic acts in public interest, but it also acts outside, and often against, private interest, which is why republicanism will always fail to preserve liberty, or increase freedom. They ultimately act in the interest of the State.
Almost "derezzes" their so-called "principles" right there.
tron.wikia.com/wiki/Derez
I agree that the term "social justice" is abused constantly in order to impose a political agenda, but I think that the title of the video is misleading, because this video didn't say what "social justice" really is:
"Social justice is the fair and just relation between the individual and society"
What really is "fair" or "just" it another topic.
Are you saying that we should remove the blindfold of lady justice.
+luis enrique vargas azcona It doesn't matter though because that's not what's practiced.
Theres definitely something to it. The desire for a better society is hard to deny. The woke will wake up, the sleepers shall sleep.
Great video, Jonah! Thank you for using you fine mind in the cause of liberty!
It is "social justice" when every runner wins a foot race even if they don't run.
Sweden is the perfect example of a country that applies social justice in every single aspect of life. It worked for a while but now see where it has gotten us!
I was *BORN* goddamn it! Give me stuff!
Social justice is calling people racists and misogynist if they have a different opinion than you.
The problem with social justice is it's insistence on social issues ("gay rights", race issues, feminism...) not economic ones.
This is the most biased educational video I have been required to view in my college career. If you just argue one side you are not educating you are pushing an opinion.
What did he say that was wrong? Social justice is a subjective term.
hey pragerU is there a place where i can see your sources
They don't have any good sources. after all, all sources that can be reputable are controlled by the left.
Hey! A smart UA-cam comment....I've only heard myths of these...
Here is the definiton my good sir. "justice in terms of the distrubution of wealth, oppurtunities, and privileges within a society"
The word "social" throws people off. It's just too harmless sounding. People think about positive human interaction and sociological aspects of society, when really, "social" has a different meaning when used in the phrases "Social Justice" or "Social Democracy". This "social" has to do with Socialism, the same way "Nazi" has to do with Nazism. Fascism was essentially Socialism (often deemed "National Socialism"), but it allowed for some private property and private businesses (which were heavily regulated), had a religious aspect, and a nationalistic aspect. It was collectivism all the same: big government, anti-capitalism, anti-indiviualism, etc. The Nazi's were horrible people, an obvious truth. But socialism and communism (as well as their many versions such as Maoism, Stalinism, Leninism, etc... which allow for leftists to constantly say "that wasn't socialism/communism", but I digress) are responsible for MUCH MORE mass murder than Nazism. However, there are very few words in the English language that carry a more negative image than the term "Nazi"; while there are few words more harmless than the word "social". If we look at "social" and "Nazi" for one second, as the root words to "Socialism" and "Nazism", it can highlight just how meaningless the modern buzz words describing collectivist societies are.
We've all heard "it's not Socialism, it's Democratic Socialism!" as well as "It's not Socialism at all, it's a Social Democracy". At an uneducated first glance, it sounds better, doesn't it? Now imagine "It's not Nazism, it's Democratic Nazism" or "it's not Nazism at all, it's a Nazi Democracy". Somehow, it all sounds just as bad. And that is because it *would* be just as bad. Once a country moves far enough left, there is a domino effect that is nearly impossible to stop. When leftists claim that those opposing a Social Democracy are merely overreacting, all I hear is "you silly goose, we're not knocking down the last domino, only the first one". Many countries in Europe (notably Scandinavia) have encountered this already. Before they knew it, they found themselves in economic (as well as healthcare crisis, and were forced to re-privatize and deregulate key industries/enterprises in order to bounce back. Even as small, relatively ethnically homogeneous countries receiving copious amounts of foreign aid, the amount of Socialism in their economy proved to be too much.
It's a shame that so many people are so ignorant of history. I am not saying that "Social Democracy", "Democratic Socialism" and "Socialism" are synonymous. But I am saying that they all lead down the same path, with some temporarily not going as far down said path. Hopefully more people will begin to look at the word "social" differently in the future.
The word "Democracy" itself sounds great at an uneducated first glance. People seem to forget that there is no better way to dismiss the needs of minorities by imposing "majority rule". They also seem to forget that the United States is not a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic. The electoral college gives every *state* a voice, as we are the United *States* of America. We are not the United Major Cities. People who live in cities have an entirely different set of issues and values for which they vote. What is best for urban America is rarely what is best for rural America. And what is decided by a majority of our citizenry isn't always what's best for our nation as a whole.
Income tax is theft. As soon as you make money, it immediately becomes a part of your total sum of money. The government then forces you to take some of your money and give it them. So really, it's no different than taking money out of every citizen's personal safe or bank account, right? Not so fast. Despite it being obvious theft, there would be a strange form of equality exhibited if that were the case. Income tax, instead, only steals from those trying to better themselves financially (and legally). There is no such thing as "taxing the rich". There is only "tax those who legally make a lot of money". An innumerable amount of people do not pay taxes in America: drug dealers, illegals, filthy rich people with no official legal income, prostitutes, and various other criminals. Texas and Florida have zero income tax and exhibit economies larger and more prosperous than most countries. All they have is sales tax. I support the "Fair Tax" and I hope anyone reading this will look into it. You'll find that it has much more advantages than I have mentioned here. But regardless of whether or not you feel some income tax is necessary, it's rather obvious that, in countries labeled as "Social Democracies", taxes have gotten out of hand.
This is an important time in our nation's history. If I made even one of you think differently of the term "social" or "democracy" , mission accomplished.
sounds like communism
It is communism. I don't know why people like social justice. Can someone tell me why people like social justice?
Intergalactic Human Empire Because of Jealousy !
How could he be so happy talking about such a dark topic.
This reminds me of communism. Anyone else?
Communism as defined by Dictionary.com is, "a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state." While what the far left is insinuating is more akin to Socialism, but with a more "progressive" twist, and I use the term "progressive" very loosely.
Bryan Gough GEORGE SOROS IS FUNDING FAR LEFTIST LIBAREAL STATE AND LOCAL JUDGES AND DISTRICT ATTORNYS. STAND UP TOGETHER AGAINST THE CORRUPT SOCIAL JUSTICE REFORM.
I support :
-Universal Healthcare
-Free Lower Colleges
-Reproductive Cloning
-Electric Cars & Renewable Energy
I oppose :
-Labor Unions
-Affirmative Action
-Political Correctness
Would you be willing to give 70% of your income basically to the government bureaucrats to do whatever they please with it?
SylkaChan waste no more time. Go to China.
I don't understand why Prager U wouldn't just look up the definition of social justice if they didn't know what it meant
Brilliant video! Social justice is the biggest scam going. You exposed and deconstructed it quite handily with insight and eloquence.
Good video. Very important to critique social justice.
"I'm not taking pie from you. I'm giving pie to me." Penn & Teller
Thank you for your heavily biased and one sided view on theoretical social justice and its' role of the government, its' flawed practical implementation, and the incompetency of those that advocate for ridiculous policies such as welfare, public education, and so forth. There is more to the story than what Mr. Goldberg is painting. Rigidity in conceptualization and application, no matter what the angle, rarely does anyone any good. It is one thing to have a view point, it is another to assign gross incompetence or even nefariousness to a group that disagrees with that view point, especially with regards to such a complex topic like the role of government in the lives of the citizens.
So, in a sentence or two (or three), how would YOU define it? And be sure to comment on the role government is to take in it, if you would.
It's a pretty massive coincidence then, that pretty much everything he said has been proven accurate time and again by practical, first-hand experience in trying to have a conversation with liberals about ANYTHING related to economic policy.
I think he just struck a nerve, and now you are all butthurt and lashing out. Prove me wrong by defining "social justice" for the class.
And talk about "heavily biased and one sided views"... look at you, snarkily saying "those that advocate for ridiculous policies such as welfare, public education, and so forth". NOBODY here, nor in the vid, said that those things were ridiculous. You're just doing what libs always do, and trying to shove words into people's mouths so you can condemn them with a clear(ly deluded) conscience.
Just like Dennis has always said, when you hyphenate something, the value of the hyphenated is now less.
Leviticus 19:15
Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.
You say the "role of government" as if they are another species of human. It would be better to say the role of people intruding into the affairs of other people. They are not endowed with some greater propensity for fairness (whatever that means) or compassion they are simply humans who are subject to the same frailty as all other humans. Any blind belief that this third party can solve peoples problem better than they can solve them themselves is simply irrational.
as usual, you are making "liberals" into the enemy, rather than focusing on any of the actual problems which society is trying to solve.
I love Prager U. They’re doing an amazing job getting the truth out with these excellent videos.
Boy, you don't know what's out there to you look right at it! Said the blind man, as he waited for the light to change so he could get back across the street.
Social justice means "making the world better for myself"
Superman stands for Truth, Justice and the American way. Social-Justice on the other hand is another word for Kryptonite.
I asked someone this question and they answered...brace yourself...Social Justice is God.
Social justice must need to stop!
I agree. We're experiencing an oversaturation of social justice and activism. No one cares or wants to listen anymore.
Social justice is defined as “… promoting a just society by challenging injustice and valuing diversity.” It exists when “all people share a common humanity and therefore have a right to equitable treatment, support for their human rights, and a fair allocation of community resources.” In conditions of social justice, people are “not be discriminated against, nor their welfare and well-being constrained or prejudiced on the basis of gender, sexuality, religion, political affiliations, age, race, belief, disability, location, social class, socioeconomic circumstances, or other characteristic of background or group membership” (Toowoomba Catholic Education, 2006).
To Rawls, social justice is about assuring the protection of equal access to liberties, rights, and opportunities, as well as taking care of the least advantaged members of society. Thus, whether something is just or unjust depends on whether it promotes or hinders equality of access to civil liberties, human rights, opportunities for healthy and fulfilling lives, as well as whether it allocates a fair share of benefits to the least advantaged members of society.
Rawls does not suggest that everyone will agree with what justice requires in given situations, but rather that his conception of justice as fairness can fit into “conflicting doctrines” because of what he calls “overlapping consensus.” That is, people agree enough about the basic principles of justice he offers that even when they disagree about larger moral, religious of philosophical issues they can still agree about issues of social justice (Rawls, 2003: 32-37).
All the above is from “What is Social Justice?” by Matthew Robinson, PhD
Justice is a name. Everybody has one.
They yelled, “Crucify him ! crucify him ! We have no king, but Cesar !”
It’s ironic that social justice is so unjust
Social Justice means that if you bother other people or their stuff, you get a fresh start in the next life.
Great excuse to completely ignore injustice without having to feel guilty about it...