(Compiling all your responses into a single thread)
But you would still have to involve PEOPLE/ CITIZENS, because no injustice can be put right by itself, it can only be put right by a more open values of the people/persons who are the ones that need to right a social injustice BY ACTUALLY BEHAVING DIFFERENTLY,
Of course. You can’t change the hearts of men with a law.
but if someone thinks that women should stay at home, minority groups are not equal et.al, then the historical injustice against those groups still exists today,
Untrue. It’s required that the people who have such attitudes have the power over others to wield them. Attitudes, in and of themselves, are not harmful.
You’ll never get 320M people on the same page, after all.
because they may be treated with scorn by some people in positions of power above them, who have an oppresive VALUE SYSTEM even today.
Hm. “Scorn”. Interesting word.
“Scorn”, to say again, does not in and of itself change anything. An employer, for example, may have a manager who personally is a bigot; but if that manager manages his people ACCORDING TO UNBIASED STANDARDS, then their own personal feelings are irrelevant.
And, if you’ve reduced the injustice in society to mere “scorn”, then I’d say that you’re pretty close to removing those attitudes from society organically.
And there are some remains in that oppresive attitude not on an institutional as much as individual and group level even today, between some conservative married couples where the husband has a say, or in the workplace if colleagues make inappropriate advances.
Well, those are two different things. In the first case, if a couple agrees to have a marriage based on a biblical principle of male dominance (that’s not really “conservative” in the same sense I use the word, it should be said), that’s entirely their business. People need to MYOB in that case.
In the second case, you’re talking about harrassment which most likely runs afoul of the workplace’s HR regulations, and the individual who is being harassed has recourse.
What I am saying is that the fact that ANY sort of social injustice, even on an individual, or group level today, is based on iWhat I am saying is that the fact that ANY sort of social injustice, even on an individual, or group level today, is based on its historical background. Until this injustice is not completely gone from the psyche of the society as a whole, the injustice itself exists, through its scope may have subsided a little.ts historical background. Until this injustice is not completely gone from the psyche of the society as a whole, the injustice itself exists, through its scope may have subsided a little.
That’s all true of course. The difference between people like myself and the “left” (if you want to use that term) is that we are MORE likely to want to let the issue run its natural course; where “running it’s natural course” means we don’t legislate against it, although we may agree and even participate in activism against it.
it is that a sizeable portion of US society thinks that sexual orientation should be of concern TO ANYTHING. This attitude is the injustice that exists today, not the fact that you can solve the problem easily.
Well, that’s going to be a little more difficult, since about 70% of the US population (and growing, after decreasing for a period of time) follow a religious tradition that is very concerned about sexual orientation.
Look, sometimes you just have to push away from the table and accept victory (something the SJWs don’t do very well). If you can get a law passed that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, that’s about as good as you can do. Again, you cannot change the hearts of people with a law.
In other words, legally forcing people to do the right thing sometimes has to be enough. You can’t force people to like it.
Yes. Which means admitting when cultural injustices still exist, even on an individual level, and explaining why it’s not right to hold oppresive views to as many people as we can.
No objection there. But it’s also good to listen when the people you accuse of holding an oppressive view talk back.
Abortion is a great example. Neither side listens to the other. Ever. All they do is throw stones.