SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Journal by The Mighty Buzzard
In case you haven't heard, FreeBSD has a new code of conduct that's seemingly pulled straight from the shit-spewing face of a blue-haired intersectional feminist.
Me, I refuse to contribute to any coding project with a code of conduct designed to protect people of one political ideology from those who disagree with them. They're of course welcome to do what they like but they'll be doing it without my help in any way.
Reply to: Re:interesting!
Post Comment
The person who marries for money usually earns every penny of it.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Arik on Thursday February 22 2018, @12:41AM
No, that's not. But that is not "social justice." That's liberalism, though here in the US that word became a pejorative back under Reagan so we tend to look for other words for it.
Which is where the confusion comes in. Liberals and "progressives" are often lumped together as left wing, but we couldn't be more different from each other.
The chosen name itself reveals the difference if you look at it closely. "Social justice" - why do they feel the need for a modifier with justice? Because their idea of justice is not the normal usage of the word, it's something entirely different, something "social" i.e. collective. The do not believe in individual rights, but in group rights. That's collectivist.
And that's not a straw man, that's based directly on what influential social justice folks proclaim publicly.
http://www.socialjusticesolutions.org/2013/01/15/the-definition-of-social-justice/
"While it’s definition varies depending on the source common themes that exist across them all are the ideas of: human rights; *dignity*; political, economical, *social, and other equality*; *equal distribution of resources*; justice; "
It goes on and you can easily use the link yourself, but again note this is not a straw man, this is not a critic putting words in the mouths of some amorphous blob of foes, this is a prominent social justice progressive writing for others of the same ilk.
And it's self-contradictory at best. They take a lot of things that sound good but aren't always compatible, throw them together, and then *redefine* things until it makes sense to them. At which point in many ways they are speaking a different language.
I've *d a few sections of that let me tell you why.
*dignity* - who could be against dignity, right? But what's it doing on this list? Are they saying that individual *dignity* is no less important than fundamental human rights? Well, in fact, they'll be meaning the dignity of a collective, a group identity, rather than of individuals, but yes, otherwise that's really what they're doing. Your right to free speech is intended to end quite abrubtly when it meets their conception of the dignity of an allegedly oppressed group.
*social and other equality* - again, we're all in favor of equality, who could object? but look carefully. They're placing the concept of *social* equality, and the even more nebulous concept of *other equality*, on the same plane with fundamental rights, with equal treatment under the law.
*equal distribution of resources* - this is an explicitly collectivist, neo-marxist idea that is completely incompatible with liberalism and fundamental human rights - again, placed on an equal level.
This is why there is no justice in social justice. Because justice is individual.
But it's a popular cult with a lot of institutional backing, and it gets a lot of support from people that buy into the attractive rhetoric and don't think too critically about it. These people can be very sympathetic and genuine. But they're being used.
And in all fairness on many issues it's only half-wrong. It's not like there's never been systematic oppression, they just expand and distort that reality to justify whatever they want. And unfortunately, a half-truth is effectively a whole lie.