Das grundsätzliche Konzept wird wie folgt dargestellt:
Justice is the state of being just, righteous, or fair. But most importantly it’s based upon the concept of objective morality. Simply put, it’s the idea that there is such a thing as universally bad, unjust, or immoral treatment of human beings. The government can not dream of dispensing justice if there is no such thing as objective truth, and objective morality.
The whole idea that human beings are deserving of a certain level of treatment can simply not exist without that idea of an objective morality that exists beyond subjective morality. Governments have to possess a set of ethical standards for the criminal justice system to even exist. This objective morality must exist for the system to work.
Das scheint mir in der Tat auch eine recht verständliche Sache zu sein: Wenn der Staat das Gewaltmonopol übernehmen will, dann muss er eine verhältnismäßig objektive Basis dafür erstellen, es müssen gewisse Regeln vorgegeben werden und innerhalb dieser muss eine gewisse Nachvollziehbarkeit und Objektivität eingehalten werden.
Demgegenüber wird dann das Konzept aus der „Sozial Justice“-Bewegung und damit auch dem intersectionalen Feminismus gestellt, wobei das Problem wie folgt skizziert wird:
Now I’ve laid that all out so that I can explain why I believe the modern proponents of social justice not only don’t understand justice, but are making it impossible for justice to be had. Social Justice is often described as the idea that every human being is deserving of basic human rights. The problem is that governments like the United States already hold this as their standard, and have for a very long time.
Social Justice assumes that the system does not already have this moral standard in place. Furthermore it’s modern proponents do not fight for justice in the true sense of the word, which would be a fairness based on objective morality. They do not believe in a fairness that most could recognize. Instead they rely on post-modernist thought, and subjective fairness.
I will submit that subjective fairness can become the standard when a consensus among the people is reached, but it is also possible that the people reaching this consensus are ill-educated on that topic. We have to be careful when changing the objective standard, because it can degrade the structure that preserves human rights.
Das ganze wird dann an einem interessanten Beispiel erläutert:
Imagine that Jane is riding the subway. Joseph is standing in the train station waiting for his train to arrive.
Jane and Joseph bump into each other by mistake as Jane exits the train and fails to see where she was going. Jane’s bag full of books and files go everywhere. Joseph stops to help Jane pick up everything she dropped, causing him to miss his train home. He gladly does so, because he feels that he was somewhat at fault, even though the whole event was caused by Jane who was tweeting as she exited the subway car.
Joseph leaves the situation feeling like he helped someone out. No harm, no foul. Jane feels as though she had just been a victim of man-slaming and as she exits the scenario she takes his picture and tweets it out.
She suggests that this man violated her personal space, and that the whole situation triggered her social anxiety. Three days later her story has changed from an accidental bump, to a man groping her in the subway car, and Joseph finds police at his door. He has to come down to the station, and is only saved by surveillance tapes and eyewitness testimony of him helping her pick up her books and files.
Individually Jane believes she was violated. Joseph believed that he helped a klutzy girl. The law recognizes their individual right to thrive. The law determines whether or not someone’s rights have been violated.
However the criminal justice system is not without flaw, and though Joseph was acquitted of all charges, Jane’s twitter followers who weren’t there believe that he groped her and got away with murder. So they get hysterical and decide that the objective standard of what it means to be violated on a subway car must be changed to include any unwanted violation of personal space.
So the internet becomes up in arms about this accident and they successfully change the law to privilege women in these kinds of disputes. They classify any violation of personal space even when accidental, as a form of assault, and decide that harassment must be determined more by individual feelings of violation than whether or not their rights were actually violated. In the mind of the social justice warrior this can never be a bad thing, because to them it would just be helping women, and we can’t have too many privileges for women.
Bei diesem Vorfall wäre die objektive Realität anhand der Videokameras nachweisbar, aber eben nur, wenn es welche gibt. Eine „einfach dem Opfer glauben“-Philosophie wäre schon deswegen sehr problematisch, weil die Wahrnehmung einzelner eben auch nicht objektiv ist und da macht die Betroffene keine Ausnahme. Gerade wenn sie sich einen sehr speziellen „Opferframe“ zugelegt hat, durch den sie Geschehnisse bewertet, dann erscheinen ihr viele Vorfälle als Angriffe, die tatsächlich keine sind.
In reality this sort of thing degrades the rights of certain people to privilege others, which is precisely what the modern proponents of social justice accuse the system of doing. From their perspective, it’s perfectly reasonable to do this because in their minds it’s fine to harm people they believe to be in a class above them.
However, the objective standard held up by the criminal justice system classifies this kind of treatment as a human rights violation. You simply can not prioritize the rights of one set of people over another. But this is precisely what they are doing.
They presume that the pre-existing government standards are to blame. Furthermore they assume that elected officials by default are bigoted and that the only way they can be less bigoted is by making sure that the authority figures are less white and male, as if the state of being female or non-white by default makes you more capable of representing other people who are female or non-white.
Eine Deutungshoheit ist in der Tat ein Privileg und als Ansatz damit für ein objektives Rechtssystem schlicht nicht zu gebrauchen. Diese Einsicht ist sicherlich für viele schwer, weil sie zB im Strafrecht die Unschuldsvermutung auch als Privileg sehen und dann nicht verstehen, warum man dieses nicht umkehren kann. Dabei wird gerne verkannt, dass in einem Strafrechtssystem einem Mißbrauch des Staates vorgebeugt werden soll und der Beschuldigte in der Hinsicht gar nicht an dem Verfahren beteiligt ist. Der Staat übt hier Rechte gegen einen Bürger aus und trägt dafür quasi die Beweislast. In einem Zivilprozess trägt ebenso derjenige, der einen Anspruch behauptet üblicherweise die Beweislast. Das ist auch ein gerechtes Verfahren, weil wer etwas haben will eben auch darlegen muss, dass es ihm zusteht. In beiden Fällen ist dies der beste Weg, Missbrauch zu verhindern.
auch die Vertreterproblematik ist relativ undurchdacht, gerade wenn man ansonsten davon ausgeht, dass Frauen stark von internalisierten Sexismus betroffen sind.
If you are this kind of social justice minded individual, what I’ve written thus far must be quite alien to you. Because you’ve been told that the world is defined by your subjective perception of privilege, and so therefore your individual perception of reality must be recognized. What you fail to realize is that governments lack the time, money, and resources needed to cater to all of the individual feelings of their citizens.
It simply cannot be done. Ultimately what you will do is privilege women and minorities until white males become a visible slave class, and you won’t stop there. Because in your individual reality, you won’t be free until white men suffer for everything you believe them to be guilty of for merely existing. Then when that slave class dies out, you’ll fight amongst yourselves until you find another scapegoat.
This is precisely what happens when you allow for moral relativism in government standards. When you start suggesting that some humans should get special treatment, because you individually believe that it’s owed to them, often the rights of others must be violated to privilege those individuals.
Das ist eine interessante Beschreibung, weil es auch deutlich macht, dass dieses System jemanden braucht, der der Sündenbock ist und es erklärt auch, warum sich der Feminismus dieser Art so oft unter einander streitet. Wenn alles subjektiv ist, dann ist eben immer jemand verletzt.
The problem is that all of you social justice types believe that it’s government that gives people rights. When in reality the government assumes you to have inalienable rights as a human being which must be preserved. That is all that government is really capable of doing sustain-ably. Anything more than that requires an increasingly authoritarian presence of the federal government, which requires citizens to give up freedoms to maintain it all.
Social Justice Warriors believe they are fighting the system, but they aren’t. Instead they just provide opportunities for politicians to achieve more power, by being the ones to give in to mobs of disgruntled idiots so that those idiots vote for them come election time. You are the system. You believe you are punching up, but you’re actually punching yourselves and the people you intend to help.
In der Tat ist es leicht für Politiker solche Ideologien zu bedienen, zumindest am Anfang. Man muss sich eben nur ebenfalls auf den Sündenbock stürzen und mehr Rechte für die anderen fordern, dann bedient man deren Interessen. Aber es endet eben, wie man beispielsweise an dem Unwesen an amerikanischen Universitäten sieht in einem autoritären System, welches kein Recht mehr gewähren kann und damit totalitär wird.
The problem is that there is no proof that there exists this intersecting web of privilege and oppression in these first world governments. It’s all bullshit being spouted by lifelong academics who majored in philosophy and social sciences, but never took classes in ethics or critical thinking.
To put it bluntly, it’s like letting a person with a degree in liberal arts tell a rocket scientist how to do their job. It’s philosophy majors who know nothing of real life, citing other philosophy majors, citing other philosophy majors. All with no empirical evidence to support any of their bullshit outside of the work of other philosophy majors.
Dazu muss man hier nichts weiter ausführen. In der Tat sind diese Theorien außerordentlich schlecht belegt und zitieren sich im wesentlichen selbst.
Und auch der nachfolgende Absatz trifft es sehr gut:
You could establish the most egalitarian society that the planet has ever known, and they would be entirely oblivious to it. Because in their minds, someone, somehow, had an advantage which they projected malice onto. Maybe in their mind, that advantage slights them in some way. Whatever the reason, there will always be disgruntled mobs of people. It doesn’t matter how good things get, they will always make signs and complain.
This is not the behavior of people fighting for objective fairness. These are the actions of those who want retribution and not justice. It gives rise to vigilante justice and a thirst for blood. It does not bring long term peace or prosperity; only turmoil. Social Justice as a standard is not the problem. The problem is that it’s proponents don’t know the meaning of justice and often there are preteens with a better understanding of government and economics than the ignorant parasitic buffoons who endlessly ask for more.
They do not demand the preservation of their pre-existing rights. Instead they ask for an increasing amount of entitlements. They endlessly speak about privilege when they fail to have even a basic understanding of the difference between a right and a privilege. They cannot differentiate between an advantage and a privilege. Instead these concepts blur together until they all mean the same thing.
Es ist eben ein „Race to the bottom„. Es kommt dabei keine gerechte Welt heraus, sondern Streitigkeiten wie auf der Geburtstagsfeier der Mädchenmannschaft und innerfeministische Kleinkriege, wer den der bessere Feminist ist.