Social justice...

[BurningDesire]

Guys I'm really stuck here. I've been reading the book "The man in the high castle" which is truly a amazing book. However I have to write about why it's about social justice. The definition they gave my I don't understand. Can some please help. I mean I know there is discriminations of the Jews but... Oh yeah the book is about a alternate time line where the nazis win WWII

@FAST6191 im tagging you cuz I'm sure you can give me a noob proof response. I don't want the work done for me I just need a crystal clear definition so I can know what to look for. Thanks guys!

 

[FAST6191]

I have not read the book and the recent TV show is sitting in my to watch pile so I can not help much on that front, I will also have to avoid the argue from summary stuff for now as I do want to watch the TV show. As for social justice in the modern sense it seems to mean many things to many people. At its core it seems to be a revisit of the old ran out of the village concept -- 600 years ago if you were booted out of the village it would likely not end too well for you. It kind of lived on in certain professional organisations (finance has a whole bunch of blacklisted traders and practitioners, the law has things like bar associations and the military is a whole world unto itself, though that can be tricky to dissect unless you are a lawyer and varies somewhat by country -- the US has the uniform code of military justice which I find to be very odd at times). Anyway though laws say many things you can follow the laws to the letter and still be an arsehole, however you have to live in society and if you are ostracised from that your life can still be hard (if people actively avoid buying my services or products because I am a bellend then I suffer even if I have technically committed no crime*, ditto if nobody wants to help me out).
Today I probably can not pick my neighbours more than two houses either side of me out of a lineup (and I live in a town of less than 150K people). However I am on the internet in various guises and can be troubled there which brings up to the modern day when people on various social networks and related concepts can try to make my internet life harder, or indeed take it back to the real world and trouble me there.

*or committed a crime but either got away with it after some fashion, see also "everybody knows he did it".

So yeah when someone suffers action by a community because of something they did, criminal or otherwise, or people think they did (there are no shortage of people getting things very wrong, see also why vigilantism is discouraged and there are rules of evidence and investigation and such like for police) it would be an example of social justice. It can also happen where a community has differing beliefs from the individual.

 

[BurningDesire]

I have not read the book and the recent TV show is sitting in my to watch pile so I can not help much on that front, I will also have to avoid the argue from summary stuff for now as I do want to watch the TV show. As for social justice in the modern sense it seems to mean many things to many people. At its core it seems to be a revisit of the old ran out of the village concept -- 600 years ago if you were booted out of the village it would likely not end too well for you. It kind of lived on in certain professional organisations (finance has a whole bunch of blacklisted traders and practitioners, the law has things like bar associations and the military is a whole world unto itself, though that can be tricky to dissect unless you are a lawyer and varies somewhat by country -- the US has the uniform code of military justice which I find to be very odd at times). Anyway though laws say many things you can follow the laws to the letter and still be an arsehole, however you have to live in society and if you are ostracised from that your life can still be hard (if people actively avoid buying my services or products because I am a bellend then I suffer even if I have technically committed no crime*, ditto if nobody wants to help me out).
Today I probably can not pick my neighbours more than two houses either side of me out of a lineup (and I live in a town of less than 150K people). However I am on the internet in various guises and can be troubled there which brings up to the modern day when people on various social networks and related concepts can try to make my internet life harder, or indeed take it back to the real world and trouble me there.

*or committed a crime but either got away with it after some fashion, see also "everybody knows he did it".

So yeah when someone suffers action by a community because of something they did, criminal or otherwise, or people think they did (there are no shortage of people getting things very wrong, see also why vigilantism is discouraged and there are rules of evidence and investigation and such like for police) it would be an example of social justice. It can also happen where a community has differing beliefs from the individual.

Damn dude I'm going to have to read that a couple times but to what I can understand its when certain people or groups are treated different then the masses?

 

[FAST6191]

Technically yes but you risk including something that does not fall under the banner of social justice entirely if you are not careful -- racism is a group being treated differently than the majority/masses and is very much not social justice. It is more when some social group attempts to trouble someone for a real or perceived moral or legal wrongdoing, separate to any legal system most of the time (though social justice could be a motivating factor for the legal system -- if a group discovers a wrongdoing and gets the police to investigate where they might not have then even if the only consequences are legal it would still stem from some kind of social justice. I also mentioned the reverse where the legal system might have failed or be perceived to have given too light a punishment and thus the punishment is furthered by a social group).

 

[BurningDesire]

Technically yes but you risk including something that does not fall under the banner of social justice entirely if you are not careful -- racism is a group being treated differently than the majority/masses and is very much not social justice. It is more when some social group attempts to trouble someone for a real or perceived moral or legal wrongdoing, separate to any legal system most of the time (though social justice could be a motivating factor for the legal system -- if a group discovers a wrongdoing and gets the police to investigate where they might not have then even if the only consequences are legal it would still stem from some kind of social justice. I also mentioned the reverse where the legal system might have failed or be perceived to have given too light a punishment and thus the punishment is furthered by a social group).

So the Nazis and japs killing the Jews would be a example for them fighting for what they think is right for their legal system since they don't like the Jews?

 

[FAST6191]

I do not know about the context of this book/series but international law would tend to have something to say about that.

At some level you might be able to make a case along those lines (something like the followers of a different ideology are wrong just for being), however it is not really close to the stuff I was on about and would be harder to argue. Social justice really is about a community driven response, not necessarily a legal one, to an individual or group for a moral or legal wrongdoing, perceived or actual. All of those can be hugely variable in their definition (see all the legal and moral frameworks ever cooked up and definitions of many things within those -- things usually being called waves or periods) and thus can lead to some strange things if you are coming at it from a present perspective of someone in the English speaking world.

Again I have no idea about this series other than it being something I might care to see and what has been said here but are you looking at some kind of "occupied" country for any of this? We the axis powers occupying the country altering their behaviour against their core beliefs to make life easier for themselves/in fear of a community reprisal? That would be fear of some kind of social justice. At the same time have any resistance elements been less than welcomed by the citizens of the occupied country for fear of reprisal but the occupying group/axis powers? Have any transplants from the axis powers not been welcomed? If you are not looking at an occupied country have any people been ostracised by the community at large for not towing the party line?

You seem to be heading down odd paths with this one, at least going by the responses. I am not sure really how to phrase it and most of the above is me speculating having consumed an awful lot of similar fiction over the years, I am sure if I went and watched some of this then I would find something to make a good example from. Pending that though I am limited in what I can do.

 

[BurningDesire]

I do not know about the context of this book/series but international law would tend to have something to say about that.

At some level you might be able to make a case along those lines (something like the followers of a different ideology are wrong just for being), however it is not really close to the stuff I was on about and would be harder to argue. Social justice really is about a community driven response, not necessarily a legal one, to an individual or group for a moral or legal wrongdoing, perceived or actual. All of those can be hugely variable in their definition (see all the legal and moral frameworks ever cooked up and definitions of many things within those -- things usually being called waves or periods) and thus can lead to some strange things if you are coming at it from a present perspective of someone in the English speaking world.

Again I have no idea about this series other than it being something I might care to see and what has been said here but are you looking at some kind of "occupied" country for any of this? We the axis powers occupying the country altering their behaviour against their core beliefs to make life easier for themselves/in fear of a community reprisal? That would be fear of some kind of social justice. At the same time have any resistance elements been less than welcomed by the citizens of the occupied country for fear of reprisal but the occupying group/axis powers? Have any transplants from the axis powers not been welcomed? If you are not looking at an occupied country have any people been ostracised by the community at large for not towing the party line?

You seem to be heading down odd paths with this one, at least going by the responses. I am not sure really how to phrase it and most of the above is me speculating having consumed an awful lot of similar fiction over the years, I am sure if I went and watched some of this then I would find something to make a good example from. Pending that though I am limited in what I can do.

Thank you for your help. As of occupied country. Japan and Germany have occupied America. Forcing Americans to act in German and Japanese ways.

 

[Subtle Demise]

My understanding of social justice would be something like a neighborhood vandalizing a registered sex offender's house or something.

 

[BurningDesire]

My understanding of social justice would be something like a neighborhood vandalizing a registered sex offender's house or something.

So like nazi and jap symbols on American soil?

 

[BurningDesire]

@FAST6191 can you help me understand this....

Social justice is the fair and just relation between the individual and society measured by both, the explicit and tacit terms for the distribution of wealth, opportunities for personal activity and social privileges. In Western as well as in older Asian cultures, the concept of social justice has often referred to the process of ensuring that individuals fulfill their societal roles[1] and receive what was their due from society.[2][3] In the current global[4] grassroots movements for social justice,[5] the emphasis has been on the breaking of unspoken barriers for social mobility,[6] the creation of safety nets and economic justice.[7][8] Such interpretations, that relate justice to a reciprocal relationship to society, are, of course, mediated by differences in cultural traditions, some of which emphasize the individual responsibility toward society[9] and others the equilibrium between access to power and its responsible use. Thence, social justice is invoked today while reinterpreting historical figures such as Bartolomé de las Casas,[10] in philosophical debates about differences among human beings,[11] in efforts for gender, racial and social equality, for advocating justice for migrants,[12] prisoners,[13] the environment,[14][15] and the physically and mentally disabled.[16]

 

[FAST6191]

I would try but I would fail as that looks like some hippy bullshit to me. What it describes are often important concepts in the modern world (or so called western society and those that follow similar paths) but I would not have called those social justice per se, those concerned with social justice enough to have it as one of their big things in life may well also be very concerned with many of those and they play to many of the same principles. That or definitions have changed on me again (quite possible, and almost certainly if the "In the current global[4] grassroots movements for social justice,[5] " part of that is at play), I guess I downplayed the society vs the state aspect in what I said above but hopefully I did not exclude it for you.

 

[BurningDesire]

I would try but I would fail as that looks like some hippy bullshit to me. What it describes are often important concepts in the modern world (or so called western society and those that follow similar paths) but I would not have called those social justice per se, those concerned with social justice enough to have it as one of their big things in life may well also be very concerned with many of those and they play to many of the same principles. That or definitions have changed on me again (quite possible, and almost certain;y if the "In the current global[4] grassroots movements for social justice,[5] " part of that is at play), I guess I downplayed the society vs the state aspect in what I said above.

Thank you for all your help. I have no idea why this is so hard for me to comprehend. Thank you though.

 

[FAST6191]

If I had to try to comprehend it and that wikipedia page you copy and pasted was what I attempted to use I would probably have a hard time as well. I have reread it several times now and I am starting to pick out things that I recognise but a lot of that seems to be twisted horribly, possibly by the same class of fool that would say "I can't be racist because I am black".

A random page from the 2005 history is impenetrable in a different way but shows what a change has happened https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_justice&oldid=32845792
Go even older https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_justice&oldid=5977459
And another https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Social_justice&oldid=23294519

This is also why wikipedia for academic purposes is not held in high regard.