Society/Culture Hypocrisy of The Left - part 3

[Carringbush2010]

You sure we're allowed to borrow from other Commonwealth countries? Could still be cultural appropriation. Maybe if they're white enough it's ok I suppose...

What meat pies aren't Aussie? The pav that may have originated from elsewhere hope no one has taken offence.

 

[ShanDog]

What meat pies aren't Aussie? The pav that may have originated from elsewhere hope no one has taken offence.

I would have thought the meat pie was just a derivative of pie, which is thought of as British (but is probably a bastardised version of something else lost to time). Pav was invented by a Kiwi wasn't it?

Incidentally, that last sentence is one of those strange ones that makes perfect sense despite sounding completely silly.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I would have thought the meat pie was just a derivative of pie, which is thought of as British (but is probably a bastardised version of something else lost to time). Pav was invented by a Kiwi wasn't it?

Incidentally, that last sentence is one of those strange ones that makes perfect sense despite sounding completely silly.

Oh well better dob myself in then and apologise to our neighbors east of us, maybe do some time. Hopefully that'll appease those who have taken offence.

 

[Proud SJW]

If it's outside the established system it is a poor and unethical facsimile of justice. Not actual justice.

Are you so sure?

Hypothetically speaking, would you assume the number of miscarriages of justice made under vigilante justice was more or less than those made under organised justice (given the same number of incidents)?

Going further, how many whose lives were completely broken would regard the justice meted out on their behalf by the state, as actual justice?

 

[ShanDog]

Are you so sure?

Hypothetically speaking, would you assume the number of miscarriages of justice made under vigilante justice was more or less than those made under organised justice (given the same number of incidents)?

Going further, how many whose lives were completely broken would regard the justice meted out on their behalf by the state, as actual justice?

It's not a matter of stats or comparison at all. It's the underlying principles that define the terms. We have a system of justice that is codified and - as far as it would appear possible to date - is set up for procedural and ethical fairness. To achieve justice, our society accepts it needs to occur within that framework. To be a vigilante is to work outside that framework, and therefore be inherently unjust.

You can make a case that vigilante action produced some sort of justice, but that involves expanding or bending the meaning of the term to fit that vigilante justice under its umbrella. Some might agree and some might not. It doesn't fit with my value structure so it's highly unlikely I would.

 

[Proud SJW]

It's not a matter of stats or comparison at all. It's the underlying principles that define the terms. We have a system of justice that is codified and - as far as it would appear possible to date - is set up for procedural and ethical fairness. To achieve justice, our society accepts it needs to occur within that framework. To be a vigilante is to work outside that framework, and therefore be inherently unjust.

You can make a case that vigilante action produced some sort of justice, but that involves expanding or bending the meaning of the term to fit that vigilante justice under its umbrella. Some might agree and some might not. It doesn't fit with my value structure so it's highly unlikely I would.

What underlying principles would those be? Utilitarian? Retributive? Restorative? A blend of all of those? If so, in what measure?
Procedurally and ethically effective by whose standards?

It's fairly easy to say that an institutionalized system of law is effective.
But the extent to which it represents "justice" is debatable, and opinions would vary about as widely as an individual's definition of justice itself might.

Justice is a big, big subject. And, it seems, a rather subjective one.

 

[Mofra]

What underlying principles would those be? Utilitarian? Retributive? Restorative? A blend of all of those? If so, in what measure?
Procedurally and ethically effective by whose standards?

It's fairly easy to say that an institutionalized system of law is effective.
But the extent to which it represents "justice" is debatable, and opinions would vary about as widely as an individual's definition of justice itself might.

Justice is a big, big subject. And, it seems, a rather subjective one.

Bingo - Rawls' work was seen as the seminal standard of Justice philosophy in the last quarter of the 20th century, critiques have now added much better context to it (in particular Sen's counter argument 'An idea of justice')

 

[ShanDog]

What underlying principles would those be? Utilitarian? Retributive? Restorative? A blend of all of those? If so, in what measure?
Procedurally and ethically effective by whose standards?

It's fairly easy to say that an institutionalized system of law is effective.
But the extent to which it represents "justice" is debatable, and opinions would vary about as widely as an individual's definition of justice itself might.

Justice is a big, big subject. And, it seems, a rather subjective one.

I am talking about people operating outside the law to carry out what they think is a just outcome that in place of the established legal system. So the underlying principle is rule of law.

I'm not referring to issues of society and morality.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I am talking about people operating outside the law to carry out what they think is a just outcome that in place of the established legal system. So the underlying principle is rule of law.

I'm not referring to issues of society and morality.

But that's the whole point of the thread, the hypocrisy does effect societal and moral outcomes and depending on where you sit you may or may not like the outcomes.

For example, there is vigilant "justice" whether or not it is within "law" is irrelevant ...................... to some. Others may see "vigilant justice" as a necessity because does not impart "justice" adequately.

Whilst it is wrong within law, the intent to serve adequate justice is indeed noble............ (dependent on ones view of adequacy)

I'm not for one minute condoning vigilante style justice, but I will condemn inadequate justice on part of the state and will admit that inadequacy is in part the reason we have vigilant justice.

 

[ShanDog]

I'm not for one minute condoning vigilante style justice, but I will condemn inadequate justice on part of the state and will admit that inadequacy is in part the reason we have vigilant justice.

I completely agree.

 

[Chief]

Of course you would be proud of the title when you think you're virtuous and a moral compass for everyone else.

And we've had this discussion before I'm sure - social justice isn't a thing. Just justice.

I think the topic is a bit wider than simply the word "justice".

Just as there is more to philosophy than just "philosophy".

Social justice is a thing - the subset that deals with wealth distribution, privilege etc. You can of course overlap it with other areas, but you can't claim it doesn't exist as an area of interest and debate.

 

[Taylor]

It's a debate on how much those without are entitled to the work from those who do.

But first, we have to agree that money is a measure of work over time, directly related to how much your time and expertise are valued, the money you are paid represents the time you have worked.

 

[ShanDog]

I think the topic is a bit wider than simply the word "justice".

Just as there is more to philosophy than just "philosophy".

Social justice is a thing - the subset that deals with wealth distribution, privilege etc. You can of course overlap it with other areas, but you can't claim it doesn't exist as an area of interest and debate.

Oh no, I understand it's a defined term and deals with certain issues. By "it's not a thing", it's rhetoric about the collective being valued over the individual etc and is bad.

Which is also a broad generalisation because of course there are social issues that affect different groups more than others and should be taken into account. But that's not really the realm in which "SJWs" (used as a pejorative) live - those nutters are the fragile identity politicking and predominently gen-Z types who need safe spaces, can't handle a non-gay actor playing a role as a gay person or think that wearing a native American outfit on Halloween is cultural appropriation.

 

[Chief]

It's a debate on how much those without are entitled to the work from those who do.

But first, we have to agree that money is a measure of work over time, directly related to how much your time and expertise are valued, the money you are paid represents the time you have worked.

Really? What about inheritance? Lottery wins? The share market?

Are lucky wins a measure of effort? Winning what Buffett called the ovarian lottery?

 

[Chief]

Oh no, I understand it's a defined term and deals with certain issues. By "it's not a thing", it's rhetoric about the collective being valued over the individual etc and is bad.

Which is also a broad generalisation because of course there are social issues that affect different groups more than others and should be taken into account. But that's not really the realm in which "SJWs" (used as a pejorative) live - those nutters are the fragile identity politicking and predominently gen-Z types who need safe spaces, can't handle a non-gay actor playing a role as a gay person or think that wearing a native American outfit on Halloween is cultural appropriation.

There are of course fringe nutters who want to make a big deal of this or that.

We saw the violent and hateful ones rallying in St Kilda to generate social media content.

As for safe spaces - look at the expensive men's clubs for the original safe space. A small number of facilities at Universities is nothing compared to that.

 

[Taylor]

Really? What about inheritance? Lottery wins? The share market?

Are lucky wins a measure of effort? Winning what Buffett called the ovarian lottery?

We can discuss the small percentage of people who benefit from that once we agree that the person who goes to work for forty hours a week has traded forty hours of their life and effort for their pay packet.

 

[Chief]

We can discuss the small percentage of people who benefit from that once we agree that the person who goes to work for forty hours a week has traded forty hours of their life and effort for their pay packet.

Yes.

But money isn't time. It seems that way for many people, of course. But even they benefit from the effort of others - past workers, unions, parents, tax benefits, scientists, engineers, and so on.

 

[Taylor]

Yes.

But money isn't time. It seems that way for many people, of course. But even they benefit from the effort of others - past workers, unions, parents, tax benefits, scientists, engineers, and so on.

and for the left, the time others have worked on their behalf that has been reallocated to them.

 

[ShanDog]

There are of course fringe nutters who want to make a big deal of this or that.

We saw the violent and hateful ones rallying in St Kilda to generate social media content.

As for safe spaces - look at the expensive men's clubs for the original safe space. A small number of facilities at Universities is nothing compared to that.

Agreed regarding the existence of fringe nutters, but on the safe spaces, why does there need to be a comparison and why does that one even compare? One of the most frustrating argumentative tactics I find is when you point to a problem and someone else points to another and says "Yeah but...", particularly when they are barely comparable.

 

[Carringbush2010]

As for safe spaces - look at the expensive men's clubs for the original safe space. A small number of facilities at Universities is nothing compared to that.

Men's clubs are not "safe spaces" in the context of this conversation though, and those who are members of those clubs don't seek refuge in them to escape something they fear or a "safe space" if you like.

Men's clubs are for social meeting and enjoyment, not to escape from something that is feared.

 

[Carringbush2010]

But money isn't time

Business disagrees with you.

 

[Chief]

Men's clubs are not "safe spaces" in the context of this conversation though, and those who are members of those clubs don't seek refuge in them to escape something they fear or a "safe space" if you like.

Men's clubs are for social meeting and enjoyment, not to escape from something that is feared.

You think they don't fear women and poor people?

Come on...

 

[Chief]

and for the left, the time others have worked on their behalf that has been reallocated to them.

You think someone who identifies as "right" has no benefits allocated that they didn't specifically spend time on?

 

[Chief]

Agreed regarding the existence of fringe nutters, but on the safe spaces, why does there need to be a comparison and why does that one even compare? One of the most frustrating argumentative tactics I find is when you point to a problem and someone else points to another and says "Yeah but...", particularly when they are barely comparable.

It's about hypocrisy. The vulnerable are attacked having or doing things the elite have or do.

 

[ShanDog]

It's about hypocrisy. The vulnerable are attacked having or doing things the elite have or do.

No they aren't. Not in this case. College students aren't the vulnerable at all. They are the soon-to-be-elites, and in many cases are attending the elitist colleges based on where these 'movements' are occurring. There's no legitimate comparison.