"Critical thinking" is what I think I'm doing, but you don't.
I never told you what I think you are doing. I certainly won't try to act the mind reader and assume I know what is going on inside of your head.
I at no point accused you of not using critical thinking. I simply answered your question. The answer was critical thinking and reason.
And it's what you think you're doing, but I don't.
Then you need to do some more research into critical thinking. ;) I am no master but I do frequently go quiz myself on it and get better. I don't think we can ever master it. They also don't teach it worth a damn in the education system these days so you pretty much have to take initiative an go look into the field yourself. There is a lot of material on it, it just isn't really taught anymore. Even in college courses with it in the title they barely touch it.
When I say, "social justice" I mean, "people should have access to the resources that will help them survive and thrive in society, without restrictions based on their identity"
Social changes. It is dictated by opinion. It is a qualifier added to the term Justice.
I contend that the qualifier is unnecessary and turns justice into other people dictating their opinion as that which other people must follow as well.
Justice. It is simple. Qualifying it pollutes it.
Opinion is also predominantly irrelevant to justice. Facts and evidence are all that is needed there.
Social justice doesn't offend me. It may by some people's standards. I mostly see it as a stupid term. It enables the turning every situation into seeking a victim, and if there is a victim then it allows people to try to find someone else or something else to blame. It is not productive at all. It is actually counter productive.
Often it is used for people to find reasons not to own up to their own mistakes.
I do believe in injustice. Yet as I indicated that is facts, and evidence based. Opinion does not matter so much.
I also don't believe people should be censored, banned, or restricted on ANY words they choose to use. Even terms I personally dislike. So while I think the term social justice is pretty idiotic that doesn't mean I am advocating stopping people from using it.
By all means use it. Myself and others may think it is stupid, yet there are likely things I'd do or say that you likewise would consider stupid.
In fact. If anyone advocating censoring social justice warriors I'd actually fight against that. Physically if need be. I do not believe there is EVER a justification for censorship. That doesn't mean there may not be consequences to what someone says. We make our own choices, and we should own up to the consequences that result.
Also for added measure. I don't dislike stupid people. We are all stupid or ignorant about certain types of information. So I refer to social justice as a stupid/idiotic term. That of course is my opinion. I do not state it is a fact. I also don't indicate you must agree with me. I also will not attack or advocate censoring you because you disagree.
The only people I truly despise are the willfully ignorant.
Those who KNOW they are wrong about something and continue that path anyway. I am NOT thinking you are doing this. I just am qualifying that personally as far as I am able to tell those are truly the only people I despise. No other group, type, etc.
We can and should all change our minds as we are exposed to new information. It's called learning. It never ends.
As to examples... Truly?
Bitching about proper pronoun used. Passing laws to imprison or fine people for not using the proper pronoun.
Censoring one group of people, while not censoring others and using excuses like advocating violence when the not censored group advocates assassination, beheadings, and outright violence and the censored target likely never mentioned violence.
The entire gender studies topic. An idiotic study arisen from people falling for an argument from authority from two professors in the late 40s and early 50s who decided to hijack a couple thousand year old term and redefine it as though they had that authority. They could just as easily have simply created a new word and a lot of the bullshit over gender wouldn't be happening.
I don't recognize their authority to redefine the word.
Now what a person chooses to identify as. Have at it. Identify as whatever. Just don't expect to FORCE others to agree with you.
I truly could care less what someone identifies as. More power to them. As soon as they think they have the right to force me to do anything because of how they CHOOSE to identify then I'll fight. Simple. Yet I'd also fight for their right to identify however they want, as no one should be able to FORCE them not to identify as such.
Good ideas don't require force.
I also find that often people claiming to be pushing for something due to social justice will be misattributing history. They clearly don't know what they are talking about. Such as using the term Nazi, or Fascist to bludgeon someone verbally when they clearly have no clue historically what those things really mean or are. They've just become one of the verbal grenades you don't have to know the meaning of you can just toss them about as a useful ad hominem attack like a mindless zombie... or as the new meme is saying NPC.
I actually don't have a problem with people using terms like Nazi, and Fascists if they are accurate. They then have meaning. To lob them all over the place frequently dilutes the meaning of the word and soon it loses meaning other than as a mindless insult.
Or someone talking against Islam being called a Racist when Islam is not a race. It is a religion and a state (if Shariah law is imposed) also sometimes known as an ideology. A race is something you are born with and have no choice in. We can choose to follow an ideology or not. Now some cultures and regions may kill you as an apostate if you decide not to be a Muslim and in such cases you'd likely not want to say anything just for survival. Yet ultimately it is still not race. Thus challenging it has nothing to do with racism.
It definitely could be Bigotry though. For example: I don't like Islam at all. I consider it to be a particularly foul religion due to the FORCE it advocates in so many areas including Hijabs, Hijrah, Jihad, etc. Yet, though I dislike the ideaology. I do not dislike the people. I do not dislike Muslims or Islamic people. I may try to convince them to change their mind with my words, but I will not force them. I also will not suddenly hate them because they won't do what I want.
I can dislike a lot of ideas. That doesn't mean I need to hate the people who do like those ideas.
As long as they are not forcing me or others either directly or through laws they are creating based upon their ideologies then I believe people can and should believe whatever they want.
This comes back to social justice. With that qualifier it is becoming something that allows people to FORCE others due to their opinion.
This is not just.
So, I just discovered that you've edited several of your previous comments since I responded to them.
Regardless, thank you for this considered response. Hopefully this will allow us to have fewer misunderstandings.
A couple things: the reason I don't think your critical thinking skills are serving you well is that you brought up social justice out of the blue (this is when I first responded to you), as if you thought someone's being offended by a gruesome display was somehow related to social justice. Your critical thinking skills led you astray.
There are points where we agree as well, e.g. I also hate it when "Nazi" is misused.
There are many things you say that I think need to be addressed, but for now, I'd like to just address the first of your examples, because it propagates a falsehood.
If you're referring to some bill or statute that I don't know about, apologies, but if you're referring to the anti-discrimination bill that aims to protect the rights of seniors in long-term care facilities, then you're misrepresenting the California bill. I think it's important to correct you here, because when you advocate for the defeat of these bills or pass along misinformation that will cause others to vote against these bills, your actions have real world harmful impacts.
There IS a bill to protect people against discrimination. I'll quote an article that talked with an expert:
We're not even talking in the bill about everyday folk bullying trans people. We're talking about people whose job it is to help them who choose to hurt them.
I won't interefere in y'alls discussion, but I have a basic introduction to critcial thinking here:
https://steemit.com/thnking/@stevescoins/critical-thinking-and-human-governance-4-links-togehter-again
I am a Constitutionalist (my bias), and Deva (@dwinblood), as far as you can bracket him ;>, comes closet to a libertarian. Part of the critical thinking process is understanding your own biases. Critical thinking processes have been a large portion in both of our writings here on Steemit.
Anyway, I return to the Halloween contest, now that I've set myself two days back in curating it ;)