Why Few ‘Social Justice Warriors’ Actually Care About Social Justice

I notice that many people love to defend ‘equality for the sexes’, ‘equality for all ethnicities’, because ‘everyone is beautiful… everyone is awesome… everyone is sacred’. All these sound extremely good, noble and well, but I have realized throughout the years that most of these so-called ‘social justice warriors’ do not truly care about social justice at all as one cannot truly stand for justice without an inquisitive mind.

These people repeat everything that sounds good, but barely put any effort in understanding the issues at hand. They lack the critical faculty to subject ideals to severe critical scrutiny. For this reason, they are extremely susceptible for ideals that at first sight seem wonderful, but that are actually rotten and damaging. They also do not possess enough modesty in how little they know. Most social justice warriors are therefore irrationally and vehemently defending a cause they do not truly understand. The worst thing is that many of them refuse to explore the issues of social justice, to look for underlying evidence to support their arguments, to read, and to learn. Many of them are self-deceivers, and discussions with them often turn out to be a vexation as it is impossible to appeal to their reason.

I agree with Michael Huemer that actually most people who fight for a ‘noble cause’ “are chiefly moved, not by a desire for some noble ideal, but by a desire to perceive themselves as working for the noble ideal – not, for example, by a desire for justice, but by a desire to see themselves as promoting justice” (Huemer, 2012, p. 19). The ultimate test to find out whether a social justice warrior truly cares about justice is to have a rational conversation about issues of justice and see whether he is willing to defend his noble ideals rationally and whether he is open for learning.

Huemer, M. (2012). In Praise Of Passivity. Studia Humana, 1, 2, pp. 12-18.

14 thoughts on “Why Few ‘Social Justice Warriors’ Actually Care About Social Justice

  1. One might first ask a “social justice” warrior for a definition of that term. I doubt that one in a hundred could enunciate anything coherent. I dislike the term and don’t use it.

    I think I know what “justice” means: rendering a verdict on a person’s actions by comparison to a moral standard. Since only individuals act, justice can’t be applied to groups. Groups don’t act. The illusion that they do leads to all sorts of mischief, like claiming that everyone with skin color X bears responsibility for harm done by other X’s to people of skin color Y.

    Furthermore, people who are told by social justice warriors that they are victims of social injustice are actually victims of the social justice warriors in many cases, to the extent they are led to become crybabies disavowing any responsibility for their shortcomings.

    I suppose if people are treated unjustly just because their color is Y, we could call that social injustice. But that strikes me as a slippery slope.

    • I think your definition of justice is more descriptive of criminal (procedural) justice. Criminal justice does not inform and produce justice – instead our understanding of abstract justice should inform the system of criminal justice, which is typically retributive instead of focused on what might actually be just, since just ≠ fair.

    • I don’t get it, Professor Terry.

      Could you elaborate? Pleeeease?

    • “Since only individuals act, justice can’t be applied to groups. Groups don’t act.”

      American jurisprudence has declared that corporations [a specific form of social group] not only act but have rights [Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission; Burwell v. Hobby Lobby].

  2. You’re confused about SJWs because you’re starting from a flawed premise: that social justice has roots in ideas about justice. This is completely mistaken. Social justice is a euphemism for a complex set of interlocking ideologies comprising victimhood culture, anti-imperialist politicking,

    When an SJW talks about equality of the sexes, they do not mean equality of opportunity, because that already exists by and large. They mean equality of outcome, and therefore the promotion of a group or groups at the expense of another, in this case men. Equality then becomes a byword for a power grab.

    When an SJW talks about equality of the races, they do not mean equality of opportunity, because again, that is something that already exists. They mean extra privileges for themselves, at the expense of the group perceived to be dominant (the white race). Read through this list of demands from the Missouri University students: http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/missouri-protesters-issue-list-of-demands-to-university-110815. You will see that much of it is just a power grab: the desire to choose the president of the university, to admit more minority students (presumably regardless of merit, excuse me for the micro aggression), to hire more minority professors, and to hire more minority staff.

    Their palaver about “everyone is beautiful” and “everyone is wonderful” clothes itself in high-minded rhetoric: of eliminating discrimination, of encouraging the full fulfillment of human life and endeavor, of bringing harmony to the world. What they really want is the destruction of all standards, the elimination of natural hierarchies that favor the beautiful, the strong, and the intelligent, and the immiseration of the human race to their own pathetic level.

    SJWs are poison and their rhetoric is poison. Remind yourself, whenever you must interact with them, that all they want is power, and they will try and get it however they can. Talk of justice is a ruse to fool people, nothing more.

    • I believe that you are right that their ideas are not rooted in ‘justice’ at all. Instead, their ideas are rooted in a resentment against “the beautiful, the strong, and the intelligent”. They attempted to take possession of ‘justice’ by gaining the power of expression and taking possession of the word ‘social justice’, a term that is vague and means anything the possessor wants it to mean. Nonetheless, SJW have become believers in their own lies. Now they truly believe that ‘social justice’ equals justice and are willing to fight for it vehemently.

    • “When an SJW talks about equality of the races, they do not mean equality of opportunity, because again, that is something that already exists.”


    • “The ‘social justice’ movement is a bunch of terrified, ungrateful, uneducated and illiterate children that bully others around with the institutional protections provided by (guess who?) the fucking LEVIATHAN STATE.”

      Very well-said. I just reposted it on my facebook. 😀

  3. The Social Justice Warrior movement is a classic case of groupthink that has turned toxic, they have salami sliced away at the idea of Justice a tiny piece at a time for so long that their definition of justice has been warped into something that they would originally been repulsed by and they became unjust in their quest for justice.

    They have justified all kinds of tactics such as physical violence , doxxing , and rejected the idea freedom of expression itself. They need to have a mirror placed in front of them so that they can see that they have became an even bigger monster than the one that the civil rights movement was originally formed to fight.

Please keep it civil

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s