re: Structural/Systemic Injustice

quote:

---

Iris Marion Young, a political theorist, gave a lecture on this topic at KU in 2003.

---

Don’t even have to look her up to know this is some feminist commie bullshite.

quote:

---

Wait, so a person having to find a new place because their present condo building was sold is an "injustice"?

quote:

---

Someone being displaced from their housing that works for them sucks, no?

---

---

Displaced from WHOSE housing?

Sandy's housing doesn't belong to her, it belongs to a landlord that permitted her to live there in exchange for rent.

Something "sucking" doesn't render it an injustice, systemic or otherwise.

Is it systemic injustice when a house burns down? When a car is totaled? When a pretty white girl is murdered on public transportation? When a man is laid off from his job?

Or is it only systemic when something that "sucks" happens to "marginalized folx"?

quote:

---

What is justice, where does it come from.

---

It’s enshrined in our founding documents. Does it come from government? Our constitution says it was written to establish justice.

quote:

---

Unless we can agree on what is just, trying to fix injustice is just the use of power to try to pick new winners.

---

What do you think is just?

quote:

---

What systems have victimized men the most, in your opinion?

---

College admissions, Family law. DEI.

quote:

---

Equal treatment across the spectrum

---

Giving everyone a bandaid whether they are bleeding or not?

quote:

---

Equal treatment across the spectrum

quote:

---

Giving everyone a bandaid whether they are bleeding or not?

---

---

Why is it the government's job to GIVE anyone ANYthing?

Hint, it's not... at least it was never intended to be.

quote:

---

It’s enshrined in our founding documents. Does it come from government? Our constitution says it was written to establish justice.

---

None of that entitles those who make bad decisions the right to take money from others.

In fact its the opposite of those founding documents.

quote:

---

What do you think is just?

---

I think Justice is when someones actions fit their reward/punishment.

quote:

---

According to this framework, no single individual or demographic is solely responsible for systemic injustice. I know there’s been a lot of discussion here about whether structural or systemic injustice exists at all, so I’m genuinely curious to hear what others think about this particular argument.

---

Justice is the principle of fairness and moral rightness, ensuring individuals receive what they are due based on their actions, rights, or societal norms. The ideas of fairness and moral rightness can be wildly subjective, so the idea of justice itself is founded on a constantly shifting ground of biases. Sometimes they align in enough people, sometimes they don't.

The problem for me is that once we start placing qualifiers in front of "justice" (social, structural, systemic, etc), it becomes even more subjective while the attempt at greater granularity lends it a false sense of concrete certitude.

As such, I think the entire premise is bullshite. Let's take a look at the example provided...

quote:

---

Some upper income urban dwellers, for example, may be aware that their decisions to buy condominiums in renovated center city buildings contributes to processes that displace lower income renters like Sandy.

---

The predicate here is that Sandy deserves an affordable place to live. By saying someone "deserves" something, we're saying they have a right to it. Thus, by saying Sandy deserves a place to live we're really saying someone must be forced to provide Sandy a place to live which she can afford, regardless of what other opportunities the property owner may have for that property. At the very least, it's a statement that implies the property owner's rights are subservient to Sandy's wants/needs (assuming she has no other options for living accommodations).

It says nothing about any choices Sandy may have made which placed her in a situation where her housing options are limited. Maybe she was born with mental and/or physical limitations which limit her income, maybe she's a meth head and makes her money by dick for drug money and now that she's getting older her options for income are becoming more limited. We simply don't know, but what we do know is that the implication is that Sandy is the one facing "injustice". This rhetorical implication is one which permeates the "justice" sphere: the default that the poor are noble because of the hardships they face by being poor.

quote:

---

No one can say, however, that their decisions and actions have directly caused Sandy's landlord to sell the building to a condo developer, thus necessitating Sandy's apartment search."

---

Except that they can because that's the very scenario she paints. Developers are buying up properties to turn them into condos, thus displacing Sandy. At the very least, the insinuation is that the rich people thus somehow owe Sandy some nebulous "something" for the "injustice" committed against her (even if there are degrees of removal between she and them).

When you strip this down to its essentials, it's the same old Marxist stance of the helpless proletariat being trod asunder by the menacing bourgeoisie. The extension of that is, of course, that something must eventually be done to bring the rampaging bourgeoisie to heel in order to save these noble victims. After that, we get to the part where reparations must be made for these "injustices". The first people in line, of course, will be the purveyors of the rhetoric in the first place. They'll shake hands with Sandy, take pictures with her, extoll her noble victimhood and hold her up as a paragon of virtue... right up to the point where they find someone who can be pushed as more sympathetic.

And then we rinse and repeat because there will always be the poor for the rage-baiters to portray as noble victims and there will always be those who are not poor who can be portrayed as the enemy.

:ThanksForComingToMyTedTalk.gif:

quote:

---

Why is it the government's job to GIVE anyone ANYthing?

---

That would fundamentally be injustice.

Giving to those who did not earn from those who did.

Its not charity as those being taken from have no say.

Justice is blind, when one gives mercy to one who hurt a victim, that is an injustice.

That is what they really are arguing for, injustice to benefit those who did not earn.

Is there a place for injustice? Maybe.

Taking from tax payers to fund orphans who are in need is an injustice.

Its one we as a nation have agreed on.

But thats not justice, those orphans did nothing to earn their benefits.

Its charity, investment, welfare, socialism.

But its fundamentally not justice.

quote:

---

Structural/Systemic Injustice

---

It’s a made up concept used to blame the system rather than the individuals or cultures of certain “oppressed” groups for a difference in outcomes be it success, educational outcomes, incarceration, differences in pay scales, poverty, etc.

Equality of opportunity is the goal. Equality of outcomes is destructive.