• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

Social Justice

5,983
Posts
15
Years
What is the best way to fight for social justice?

Do we aim for incrementalism or do we aim for sweeping change? Do we prioritize our particular causes over the others or do we focus on solidarity? What is the best way to deal with people who disagree? What is the best way to change hearts and minds? Is the priority to persuade, to educate, or to send a message? Do we emphasize dialogue or getting out the message? What is the best way to protest? Is it better to work within or to demonstrate against the political system? What is the best way to advocate in your community?

What is the best way to fight for social justice?
 

Her

11,468
Posts
15
Years
  • Age 30
  • Seen today
This made me think of something Sam Smith encountered earlier in the year. Not that I keep up on the guy or whatever (ew), but he had an experience which is rather interesting, or all too common depending on how you look at it. He was walking down a street in London with a black friend where out of nowhere, his friend was verbally abused on account of their race by some random passerby. Now, that's not the point. The point is that Mr. Smith was absolutely, positively shocked and rattled by this experience. He did not think such things happened in London, period. Despite racism being very much a headline story in recent years, he was totally detached from the possibility of it happening, particularly in a large, worldly city such as London. Luckily his reaction was that of horror and wanting to help the friend and whatever, but my interest lies in his previous detachment from the situation. It's so common a story - 'I had heard about it on the news, but I never believed it until I saw it with my own eyes!' or other situations where they straight up ignore the stories and experiences of those directly affected by racism, until they see it themselves and suddenly develop empathy out of the blue, possibly out of guilt. I'm aware social justice isn't solely about racism, I just thought Sam Smith's experience was a good starting point.
This is where social justice comes in - showing the detached the reality of others. Those who are unknowing, or willingly ignorant, or openly callous, due to their position in life. That's the crux of 'social justice', educating those who have not heard or do not wish to hear. Too often the term is used as a buzzword to decry whatever highly exaggerated or outlier story is picked up on by media outlets. Sometimes it is misused by those just trying to do good without any particular aim or understanding. Cases like those are disappointing and aren't indicative of the larger idea, which I think most opponents know but choose to ignore because that would be damaging to their blind rage.

But 'enacting' social justice? Well, I have a few views on the matter, but I'll wait for other people to post since I am permanently phone bound and a bit tired right now, but more importantly, I think it'll be easier to make my views clearer when there are other views present.
 
191
Posts
8
Years
The first step to making any sort of change in society is education. As Harley Quinn said, a lot of people are ignorant of the issues or have this misconception that just because you live in a "first-world country" those issues aren't present. But education needs to come in 2 different forms. First you need to educate the people who believe social injustice doesn't exist, by showing them that it does. Next you need to educate those who enact social injustice and show them that the stereotypes they think exist actually don't (e.g. not all muslims are terrorists). Until we can do that, we have no hope in changing the world. Active protesting and riots, etc only fan the flames and cause more problems than they solve.

In terms of education, it needs to start from the top. I hate to be "that guy" but as long as we have people like Donald Trump in power with their narrow-minded views on the world, we can never hope to get rid of social injustice. Most people look up to those in power and emulate them, both in actions and attitude. If you want to change the mindset of the people, you have to change the mindset of the country leaders.
 
25,519
Posts
11
Years
What is the best way to fight for social justice?

Do we aim for incrementalism or do we aim for sweeping change? Do we prioritize our particular causes over the others or do we focus on solidarity? What is the best way to deal with people who disagree? What is the best way to change hearts and minds? Is the priority to persuade, to educate, or to send a message? Do we emphasize dialogue or getting out the message? What is the best way to protest? Is it better to work within or to demonstrate against the political system? What is the best way to advocate in your community?

What is the best way to fight for social justice?

I think expecting everything to instantly change in a sweeping motion overnight is naive, idealistic and unrealistic. We keep pushing forwards, forcing gradual changes until we reach the end goal.

We also definitely need to stop prioritising individual groups/causes. If all the different groups dealing with social issues worked together and stopped trying to step over other issues in society, we would probably have a lot more success. True equality will never be achieved if we focus only on one group/ourselves. Unity will achieve a lot more than six hundred different organisations arguing over who is the most oppressed.

The best way to deal with people who disagree is to educate them. Provide them with irrefutable evidence or support your stance with logic as best you can. If these people refuse to acknowledge hard facts and common sense, then you ignore them and move on to the next person until the ignorant are a minority and eventually disappear.

"Sending a message" is never the right way to go about things, it shuts down discussion and leads to extremism. The way to go about things is to educate and promote discussion. If you want things to change, people need to be informed about why the change needs to happen and people need to discuss said changes.

I think the greatest success will come from working both within and outside of the political system. If you have populace pushing for a change and people representing that populace in the government, you're not only providing societal pressure but having a representative voice that can help enact the change.

The big thing though, is education and discussion. It needs to happen in communities, it needs to happen in the government and we need to make use of the internet where we can connect to people and share our information with millions with ease. The first step towards achieving change is to talk about it.

In terms of education, it needs to start from the top. I hate to be "that guy" but as long as we have people like Donald Trump in power with their narrow-minded views on the world, we can never hope to get rid of social injustice. Most people look up to those in power and emulate them, both in actions and attitude. If you want to change the mindset of the people, you have to change the mindset of the country leaders.

I would argue that this is not necessarily true. Governments are beholden to the wishes of their people (at least they are in a democracy). Society holds power over the government through our votes. This means that if a politician or party intend to stay in power, then they will eventually change their policy to reflect what the voters want.
 
227
Posts
9
Years
  • Seen Jan 28, 2017
Oh Social Justice how fucked it is, now Based off how i have experienced Social Justice on the internet I personally believe that it is a horrible thing but you get ready to call me a racist sexist homophobic bigot hear me out and read what i have to say. Now the internet is a strange place and there's many different websites and groups of people who use the Internet and these websites. One of if not the most cancerous and worst group on the Internet that is the Social Justice Warriors aka SJWs.

Now for those are yall who are a little unfamiliar with SJWs they are social justice warriors extremists and pretty much the Social justice version of Islamic State many of them basing themselves on Tumblr they have extreme social justice positions on issues like Feminism, Racism etc and at least from what i have seen this version of Social justice is the one with the most momentum behind it and the one that always seems to be popping up in the news. And I despise SJWS with a burning passion and the reason why i bring this up is that as i just mentioned this version of Social Justice seems to be the version that always pops up and it's safe to say that they have had an impact. From Dead or Alive Xtreme 3 not being released outside of Asia and Blizzard changing Tracer's pose in the game Overwatch to Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn speaking at the UN. These extremist values have the potential to jump into the mainstream which would make them even worse. This SJW extremists are a movement and is rapidly growing and all that SJWs are butthurt extremists who are very good at whining about things that they disagree with like DAX3 or Tracer's pose and that seems to be working and I for one will not stand for this. If this becomes the type of Social justice that is commonly accepted then i'm gonna have to be dragged kicking and screaming into believing it.

Now for those have you who made it all the way though this without already making a post saying that I'm a bigot who needs to go back his mudhut my final thoughts is that social justice is something that could help the world but the SJW movement is a prime example of it going wrong. I would rather have things stay the way they are now then having to be under the social justice standards these SJWs want that would be a world where even comedians would have tip toe around people's butt hurt feelings and any joke that could offend anyone would get massive amount of hate towards it and anything like DAX3 or Tracer's pose would be censored so fast that people's heads would swing. Just take a moment to think and ask yourself what kind of society would that be.
 
458
Posts
9
Years
I agree with what has been generally said in the three posts above. However I agree with Midnight Shadow and disagree with gimmiepie on the following:

I would argue that this is not necessarily true. Governments are beholden to the wishes of their people (at least they are in a democracy). Society holds power over the government through our votes. This means that if a politician or party intend to stay in power, then they will eventually change their policy to reflect what the voters want.

You're ignoring or forgetting about the power donors and lobbyists have over politicians (not to mention their own agendas). In an ideal system what you say would be correct, but if that were how it is then gay marriage would be legal in Australia. One politician (I can't remember her name) said that even if a plebiscite showed majority support for legalising SSM, she would still vote no due to her "conscience".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nah
25,519
Posts
11
Years
I agree with what has been generally said in the three posts above. However I agree with Midnight Shadow and disagree with gimmiepie on the following:



You're ignoring or forgetting about the power donors and lobbyists have over politicians (not to mention their own agendas). In an ideal system what you say would be correct, but if that were how it is then gay marriage would be legal in Australia. One politician (I can't remember her name) said that even if a plebiscite showed majority support for legalising SSM, she would still vote no due to her "conscience".

Lobbyists, donors and politicians are also a part of society. They are a part of what policies are adapted to fit. In general though, politicians want to appease as many people as they can on as many issues as they can. That's the way to get elected.

The reason this woman can get away with things like that, is because enough of the old conservatives and young sheep are still anti-gay or apathetic. Things are changing though, and it's only a matter of time until acting as she does will be tantamount to political suicide.
 
458
Posts
9
Years
Lobbyists, donors and politicians are also a part of society. They are a part of what policies are adapted to fit. In general though, politicians want to appease as many people as they can on as many issues as they can. That's the way to get elected.

The reason this woman can get away with things like that, is because enough of the old conservatives and young sheep are still anti-gay or apathetic. Things are changing though, and it's only a matter of time until acting as she does will be tantamount to political suicide.

Just focusing on this bolded section. They may also be part of society but the power balance is not equal, so everything is skewed. There's a reason certain companies spend so much money on politics. The result can then be laws passing that benefit private business over society as a whole.It's for this reason that the idea of politicians having to wear their sponsors so that voters understand who's behind the scenes pulling the strings is being proposed in California.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nah
25,519
Posts
11
Years
Just focusing on this bolded section. They may also be part of society but the power balance is not equal, so everything is skewed. There's a reason certain companies spend so much money on politics. The result can then be laws passing that benefit private business over society as a whole.It's for this reason that the idea of politicians having to wear their sponsors so that voters understand who's behind the scenes pulling the strings is being proposed in California.

I'm not suggesting that there isn't currently an imbalance in power. There definitely is. But there's plenty of corporations and the like who support the tackling of certain social issues also. It's not like it's corporations vs society all the time. There is going to be a tipping point when the government will have no choice but to act.
 
191
Posts
8
Years
Lobbyists, donors and politicians are also a part of society. They are a part of what policies are adapted to fit. In general though, politicians want to appease as many people as they can on as many issues as they can. That's the way to get elected.

Part of being a successful politician is getting the people on your side and then subtly changing what they believe. A very common approach is to say you agree with the masses about a certain issue, so they grow to like you, gain their trust and respect, then bring up someone more controversial and suddenly instead of the masses completely rejecting the idea, the start to think "well, he was right about the last idea, so maybe he's right now." They may not voice their opinions or even think about them, but the seed is still planted in the subconscious and that seed will grow.
 
10,769
Posts
14
Years
From Dead or Alive Xtreme 3 not being released outside of Asia and Blizzard changing Tracer's pose in the game Overwatch to Anita Sarkeesian and Zoe Quinn speaking at the UN.
You hate Social Justice Warriors so much because a game wasn't localized and a character's pose was changed? That makes them seem like they've not really been able to do much of anything. And if that's the case, why so mad at them?
 
5,983
Posts
15
Years
We seem to have decided on talking about the slow and steady path of gradualism.

Is gradualism and not making a fuss just? Is it the right approach for the people who are actually marginalized, who demand equal treatment as a matter of right?
The word gradualism…is so often an excuse for escapism and do-nothingism which ends up in stand-stillism

~Martin Luther King Jr.

What do you make of the point of view that gradualism is just the polite way of describing inaction and foot-dragging towards injustice?
 

Her

11,468
Posts
15
Years
  • Age 30
  • Seen today
It is pathetic and ultimately a way of avoiding any sort of responsibility or making a decision. It is a spit in the face of those actively working towards immediate improvement for their cause. At best it is indecisiveness, at worst it is actively standing in the way of progress by not allowing direct action.

Impeding progress only helps those perpetuating injustice.
 
25,519
Posts
11
Years
I think that Gradualism can be an excuse to do nothing, but it doesn't have to be. Rome wasn't built in a day, and unfortunately when it comes to social justice issues there's a lot of conservative opposition - especially from the older generations that tend to be the ones holding positions of power. Gradualism isn't the preferred method, most of us would love for everything to become equal over night, but it's the approach we're going to have to take if we want to start making any change at all. Take the small victories and use those to build the foundation for a better future, if you try to change everything at once it will scare the old conservatives and you'll get totally walled.
 
5,983
Posts
15
Years
I think there is a fair case for gradualism. The laws of a country should reflect the expectations of the people. If the laws progress gradually, then that should only be a reflection of the gradual change in people's expectations. If you make a change before the people are "ready" for it, then there will be backlash and that could hurt the group you're advocating for. Direct action on behalf of the few that is not supported by the many will at best be ignored, at worst be trampled upon.
 

Sir Codin

Guest
0
Posts
It is pathetic and ultimately a way of avoiding any sort of responsibility or making a decision. It is a spit in the face of those actively working towards immediate improvement for their cause. At best it is indecisiveness, at worst it is actively standing in the way of progress by not allowing direct action.

Impeding progress only helps those perpetuating injustice.
Okay, I'm lost. Are you aiming this at gradualism itself...or the concept of gradualism being an excuse for inaction.
 

zakisrage

In the trunk on Highway 10
500
Posts
10
Years
Gradual changes are always the best way to achieve equality. I mean, getting rights for women, racial minorities, and LGBT people took decades (sometimes centuries) to achieve. We can't expect homosexuality to be legalised one year and then gay marriage legalised a few years later. It may take more than a lifetime to achieve equality, but it can be done.

And as a side note, actual activism that involves participation in the community is the best way to achieve it. Complaining on Tumblr will not get you anywhere. And let the members of minority groups speak for themselves. For example, it annoys me how LGBT rights activism is dominated by heterosexuals (generally female). Let actual LGBT people speak out against homophobia and fight for their rights.

I also think that minorities have to accept some responsibility for the problems that might plague their communities. As a Muslim, I can definitely say that misogyny, anti-Semitism, homophobia, religious fundamentalism, and crime are all serious problems in our community. Believe me, pointing out that anti-Semitism is a serious problem in the Muslim community is NOT Islamophobic - it's not the same as saying that all Muslims hate Jews and want to kill them. Ignoring problems that disproportionately affect minority communities or pretending they doesn't exist are wrong because it only ends up making the problems worse. We need to advocate for ourselves and teach people within our communities to fight against these stereotypes - if we accept responsiblity for problems in our communities, it will be easier to fight against them. I'm fine with non-Muslims trying to help us, but the way the SJWs are "fighting" anti-Muslim sentiment is completely insincere.

SJWs are counterproductive to society by silencing actual members of minority groups (I hate to say it, but women don't count as a minority group since half of the world's population is female) and using them as agendas for their ultraliberal baloney. If we let SJWs hold the reins of society, all hell will break loose. Contrary to popular belief, being too tolerant is just as bad as being bigoted and prejudiced. There has to be order, rules, and limits in society. There are plenty of worse things than someone being offended. I mean, we live in a world where cultural appropriation accusations are omnipresent, video games have to kowtow to Anita Sarkeesian's demands, playing the race card is considered okay, boys liking girl things (or vice versa) is considered a sign of being transgender, animals are considered the equals of humans, fictional characters are expected to be role models for real people, and offending someone is considered tantamount to murdering or raping someone. I'm sorry, but that's not how society is not supposed to work. We have forgotten what is important. Trying to be super-tolerant is like trying to be funny - the harder you try, the less effective it is.
 
Last edited:

pastelspectre

Memento Mori★
2,167
Posts
14
Years
I think we should just lead protests and fight for our rights for equality and stuff like that. As for people that disagree, well...agree to disagree, as long as they do not physically harm anyone or shove opinions in anyone's face, I guess. I don't really like SJW's (typically tumblr ones or radical ones) so I'd rather that we take it slowly and surely, and just..like, gradually get there, as much as I'd like change now.
 

Her

11,468
Posts
15
Years
  • Age 30
  • Seen today
And as a side note, actual activism that involves participation in the community is the best way to achieve it. Complaining on Tumblr will not get you anywhere. And let the members of minority groups speak for themselves. For example, it annoys me how LGBT rights activism is dominated by heterosexuals (generally female). Let actual LGBT people speak out against homophobia and fight for their rights.

This does tend to be a problem - there have been many occasions where someone with a platform will speak over, if not for, the people actually affected by the issue at hand. It's definitely a noted problem. For example, you get liberal western feminists speaking over Muslim women and erasing their stories and their own issues, replacing their inherently different narrative with an overarching Western one. Definitely a problem and you are right there. At the same time, there are just as many cases where the so-called spokesperson is being unfairly given the attention through no fault of their own. People have a tendency to listen to those not directly being affected by the issue rather than those who are - they don't like having to put faces to name/stories. Let's take the relatively recent acceptance (or at least, focus) on transgender people in Western countries. When Caitlyn Jenner had her interview with Diane Sawyer, she took a moment to emphasise how lucky she is because of her wealth and status, compared to most of those within the transgender community. Particularly those who are trans women and black or Hispanic, who tend to have the highest rates of assault/sexual violence/murder directed at them within the transgender community. Not only that, they tend to be poorer and thus have less options of legal recourse, more convincing attempts at femininity should they want that, housing, etc. I could detail the specifics but that's not what I'm talking about. The point is that Ms. Jenner talked about it and suddenly many people who knew about trans issues were absolutely shocked about the situation, despite the people Jenner was talking about having being vocal about the issue for years. But they were ignored because it is easier to package the info coming from a wealthy white trans person, rather than a poor trans minority.
I'm just trying to say that sometimes, people can't help being considered as speaking over others. Sometimes it is inevitable. But as long as they aren't using the issue to promote themselves and getting others to actually listen to those directly affected, putting the focus on these people and not using the issue to further their own interests, then that's good.

I also think that minorities have to accept some responsibility for the problems that might plague their communities. As a Muslim, I can definitely say that misogyny, anti-Semitism, homophobia, religious fundamentalism, and crime are all serious problems in our community. Believe me, pointing out that anti-Semitism is a serious problem in the Muslim community is NOT Islamophobic - it's not the same as saying that all Muslims hate Jews and want to kill them. Ignoring problems that disproportionately affect minority communities or pretending they doesn't exist are wrong because it only ends up making the problems worse. We need to advocate for ourselves and teach people within our communities to fight against these stereotypes - if we accept responsiblity for problems in our communities, it will be easier to fight against them. I'm fine with non-Muslims trying to help us, but the way the SJWs are "fighting" anti-Muslim sentiment is completely insincere.

I agree with your general sentiment - my thoughts on the specifics are irrelevant as it is not my place to talk about them.

SJWs are counterproductive to society by silencing actual members of minority groups (I hate to say it, but women don't count as a minority group since half of the world's population is female) and using them as agendas for their ultraliberal baloney. If we let SJWs hold the reins of society, all hell will break loose. Contrary to popular belief, being too tolerant is just as bad as being bigoted and prejudiced. There has to be order, rules, and limits in society. There are plenty of worse things than someone being offended. I mean, we live in a world where cultural appropriation accusations are omnipresent, video games have to kowtow to Anita Sarkeesian's demands, playing the race card is considered okay, boys liking girl things (or vice versa) is considered a sign of being transgender, animals are considered the equals of humans, fictional characters are expected to be role models for real people, and offending someone is considered tantamount to murdering or raping someone. I'm sorry, but that's not how society is not supposed to work. We have forgotten what is important. Trying to be super-tolerant is like trying to be funny - the harder you try, the less effective it is.

Yeah, this is where you lost me, though. I'm directing this at pretty much everyone who thinks the same way - it is extremely tiring to see the term SJW bandied about with the notion that these people have anywhere close to the numbers and influence as the people they're (rightly or wrongly) angry at. It's just a bit laughable to think that ultraliberalism, namely the exaggerated kind used by opponents of 'social justice' to make any sort of social improvement that is contrary to their beliefs seem crazy, poses a threat to the status of modern society. Not to mention that, well, most of these so-called SJWS are young people who are misguided in their beliefs and equally misguided in expressing them. It's only natural to have those who are premature in thought when this is the first generation to have the widespread info and means of communication that we have. I'm hardly going to chastise beyond what is necessary when they're simply trying to help in the way they think best. They're certainly not as widespread as the internet likes to make them out to be either, given that if we're being realistic, people are only just getting around to liking gay people and only just considering the option that perhaps there is a problem with how society deals with rape. Let alone this apparent idea that 'ultraliberalism' will sweep the world and topple governments or whatever.
I'd rather focus on the growing number of ultra-nationalist radical groups across Europe, for one thing.
 
Back
Top