I think talking about "the just world fallacy" is a tiresome straw man. It's one side of a false dichotomy, and not something that people should debate any more than "nature vs. nurture".
But what I am referring to with "nature vs. nurture" is that you can't separate them. Take away the physical basis of a person, all the DNA, and there would be no person. Put a newborn in a box, i.e. no nurture, a person would also not develop. So you can't assign a fraction to either one.
Similarly, there is no separating randomness from selection/merit, in my opinion, because the latter acts on the former and both pervade everyone's life.
That is what I mean by a false dichotomy. It's not just that life involves both randomness and selection, but that they are not opposed things.
Ok but I don't see why the just world fallacy is a false dichotomy. It is precisely a fallacy, because people don't acknowledge randomness and selection.
So it doesn't make any sense to me to say the world is just rather than unjust, or vice versa. Thus, I reject the dichotomy, as applied to the world. Something specific could be just or unjust, of course.