I would rather the justice department, and labor dept choose their targets for non-political reasons, neither for "social justice" nor corporate protectionism
I postulate, labor justice is social justice.
This is caused by both advocates and opponents of the various causes, positions, and world views
Katherine Martin, the head of U.S. dictionaries at Oxford University Press, said in 2015 that "[a]ll of the examples I've seen until quite recently are lionizing the person".[1] As of 2015, the Oxford English Dictionary had not done a full search for the earliest usage.[1] Merriam-Webster dates the earliest use of the term to 1945.[6]
...
According to Martin, the term switched from primarily positive to negative around 2011, when it was first used as an insult on Twitter.[1] The term first appeared on Urban Dictionary in 2011 and on the Something Awful forums in 2013.[7] According to Know Your Meme, the pejorative term "keyboard warrior", which describes a person who is unreasonably angry and hides behind their keyboard, may be a precursor to the "social justice warrior".[7] The negative connotation has primarily been aimed at those espousing views adhering to social progressivism, cultural inclusivity, or feminism.[12][1][2] Scott Selisker writes in New Literary History that the SJW is often criticised as the "stereotype of the feminist as unreasonable, sanctimonious, biased, and self-aggrandizing".[12] Use of the term has also been described as attempting to degrade the motivations of the person accused of being an SJW, implying that their motives are "for personal validation rather than out of any deep-seated conviction".[3][9] Allegra Ringo in Vice writes that "in other words, SJWs don't hold strong principles, but they pretend to. The problem is, that's not a real category of people. It's simply a way to dismiss anyone who brings up social justice."[9]
The term's negative use became mainstream due to the 2014 Gamergate harassment campaign ...
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior>
Numerous sources cited, notably:
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/10...>
<https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/what-does-soci...>
<https://web.archive.org/web/20160102031743/http://recode.net...>
See also "Social Justice": <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice>
You want the justice department, a branch of the goverment, to not be political?
The entire premise, the entire legitimacy of the legal system is the blind scales of justice.
It seems you want it to be political, that is would be a nation of despotism, oligarchs, and tyranny
their execution shouldn't but their priortiies are entirely political mandates.
When people felt unsafe in the 90s and the DoJ increased minimum sentencing was that not a political incentive?
Protecting business over people, as it currently stands in their priority list, is a political decision.
Changing the status quo is not "political" and remaining as is isn't. Their current directives are poltiical assignments, and rerouting resources in a more worthy endevour is the same.
No that was a change in legalization, which legislation is political, but the 90's saw TONS of anti-crime laws passed which required the non-political arms of the government to act
that is how it is suppose to work, the people elect representative who pass laws, and then those laws are enforced by the non-political arm.
These entities have become political in the wake of over criminalization since now as a function they have to "choose" which laws to enforce and which not to because other wise nothing would get enforced as a matter of course.
The solution to this is not just acceptation that enforcement should be political, but instead removing the political choices from the non-political arms placing it back into the political space of the government (i.e the legislature) . One key way to do that for the Federal government is to return said federal government back to its constitutional bounds which today it FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR exceeds
The assumption that there are too many laws and "non political" arms need to pick and choose which ones to apply is true. But I would consider that just part of reality.
Economics is just the study of resource allocation, the goverment only has so many federal tax officers and they need to focus on something. If they focus on big accounts it doesn't make not paying VAT legal. It just less likely you get caught.
Laws existing as a framework to express the current priorities of the goverment (aka tax avoidance bad) is useful even without enough officers to enforce it 100%.
> One key way to do that for the Federal government is to return said federal government back to its constitutional bounds which today it FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR exceeds
The libertarian angle is cool and all, but the political voice of the people has consistently voted for bigger gov not smaller, so you want to apply your own politics to make things "non poltiical". Which is not very consistent
This is like asking "you want the fire dept to not be political?"
Of course you don't want the executive branch to not be political. They are the administration. If the IRS just goes after whoever the current reigning party doesn't like, you'll soon no longer have a functioning democracy.
The declaration was signed by the US as well.
So social justice is an objective of US as a whole, as a democracy, as a Country, hence is not a political view since 1993 in USA.
It was never fully ratified [1]. It was ratified by Russia and, somehow, Afghanistan.
But you're looking in the wrong place.
It was called the "Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action" it was not an agreement to be ratified, but a course of action for the UN members to follow, which includes the US.
Of course in United States social justice is seen as a political stance, it's not surprising from the country that has signed and not ratified
- Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
- International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
- Convention on the Rights of the Child (they do not actually think of the children, apparently)
- Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
I get that the rights of people with disabilities can be a divisive argument, but they also refuted to sign for
- Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
- Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
- Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
- Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
and if that wasn't bad enough, they have also not signed
- International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families
- International Convention for the Protection of all Persons from Enforced Disappearance (CIA really loves making people disappear, they couldn't possibly disappoint them)
How is it possible that we call it "the greatest democracy in the World" while they are not even a real Democracy is the "greatest mystery in modern history"
So, yeah, social justice is political only in USA and probably in some South American dictatorship lead by former nazis and militarily installed by yours truly the USA
Not even Putin would say in public that social justice it's the patrimony of a specific Political side, because it would be a (politcal) suicide, even for a guy like Vladimir Putin who recently spoke about it citing Martin Luther King (of course it's all propaganda in his side, but still...), while in the USA, where MLK was born and was killed, his ideas are still considered "agenda" and not "Country's own values".
Again: not surprising, just sad.
> It was ratified by Russia and, somehow, Afghanistan.
to put it mildly, in that list, as you can see, USA is the country that ratified fewer treaties.
Even Iran ratified one treaty more than US.
Actually there is one that did worse: Bhutan, with zero of them.
You’re shifting your goal posts. You said “social justice is an objective of US as a whole” and hence “not a political view.” That’s false.
> Even Iran ratified one treaty more than US
Which shows the difference. Ratification, in America, is not performative. Those treaties can become the basis for lawsuits against the U.S. in U.S. courts. If you’re arguing women have a better time in Iran, or civic and political rights are better protected in Russia, because they ratified those chapters, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
If you're saying that US usually says one thing, and does another thing entirely, you're right.
When someone signs an official document in representation of their Country, they are actually saying that the Country's objective align with the things written in the document.
They signed a document that stated that social justice is not political, it's a human right.
You're now saying that's false in the US.
So either you or the US are lying.
> Which shows the difference. Ratification, in America, is not performative
like the ratification of
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
in 1994?
Are we there yet?
> Those treaties can become the basis for lawsuits against the U.S. in U.S. courts
Lawsuits, like the first of a long list a guy named Donald Trump had to face for his act of racism, in 1973, for refusing to rent houses to black people?
That totally blocked him from becoming President of United States and from running again at the next elections.
Because in USA nothing is performative.
Trump BTW was at least honest in treating things the rest of the World consider global as internal political arguments; when he felt that climate change wasn't important to his administration, he withdrawn from the Paris climate accord.
Seriously, you're talking like the US is the only country with the rule of law, where the ratification of an International treaty has actual legal consequences.
How come that Countries like Italy, France, Germany, even MONGOLIA, ratified all of them or more than 90% of them and US did not?
Are you saying that in Finland they have no justice system or engage in "performative treaty signing" as a cultural tribal tradition?
> If you’re arguing women have a better time in Iran, or civic and political rights are better protected in Russia, because they ratified those chapters, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
I've simply argued that they committed to the cause and failed.
US hasn't even tried.
If, as you say, they didn't out of fear of "lawsuits against the U.S. in U.S. courts" does that mean that you think US know that they do not meet the requirements?
No. I am saying you said "social justice is an objective of US as a whole" and hence "not a political view." Then you said "social justice is political only in USA." Those are opposing views you've flip flopped on.
> signed a document that stated that social justice is not political, it's a human right
No, it did not.
> like the ratification of International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1994?
You're launching off solely titles. Read the text [1]. Article 5 enumerates rights. The rest is condemnations and the establishment of a commission. China, Saudi Arabia and Israel are also a signatories [2]. None of them give Article 14 jurisdiction, the U.S. included, which made it a toothless ratification.
[1] https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/...
[2] https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/...
yes, by design. We have a strong belief in our Sovereignty, We the people have no desire to be ruled by the UN or treaty, and International Treaties are generally viewed unfavorably by the public (correctly so). In fact most Citizens of the US (including myself) hold the UN in utter contempt and would support a withdraw (including our money) from the UN
Also no Treaty supersedes our Constitution.
Listen to yourself.