Modern Problems: Social Justice vs Social Justice Warriors

There is no doubt that there is a problem with social justice in the world. Whether there be a problem with militancy or a problem with a lack of fair and impartial individuals seeking to increase the presence of social justice, the presence of issues as they concern social justice is evident. For the sake of clarifying the ongoing confusion in the matter, I'd like to explore the difference between social justice, and those who get labeled social justice warriors.

Not everyone who seeks social justice is a social justice warrior.

Definition of social justice: "Justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society."

The lack of information within this definition is absolutely egregious and I'm actually surprised how callous it is in the terms of successfully invalidating the many facets of social justice. Thus, as is usual, we shall be expanding upon this definition greatly.

Social justice: Any facet of social interaction, literal, direct, and/or indirect, seeking to bring about fair and impartial treatment for every individual within a social system. Whether it be calling for constructive conversation, such as not blatantly insulting people, or protesting the unfair treatment of others, such as the civil rights movement; social justice is the evident action(s) taken to those progressive ends.

Just to throw some clarity in here, because I know how triggering the term, "progressive," can be; progressive as it is being used here is a non-partisan phrase, and social justice is, unarguably, non-partisan in nature. Anyone who feels social justice is partisan is projecting their own party's idea of social justice onto the term, and in fact are a social justice warrior of their own party.

Definition of social justice warrior: "A person who expresses or promotes socially progressive views."

Obviously this is an unfair, literal definition of the term, "social justice warrior," that is screaming for me to give it the most common colloquial definition. I mean, if I was to apply some critical thinking to this I would say that this definition is purposefully painting the word in an undeserved positive light. Alas, I'm being unfairly subjective, so I'll shut up and define the term.

A social justice warrior is any individual that seeks to turn every social issue into a verbal knife fight with those who disagree with them. You'll most commonly find social justice warriors trolling internet forums and bashing those they perceive as opposing their views, who in turn disparage the social justice warriors, often claiming that they just want to limit their freedom of speech. Social justice warriors prefer avoiding conflict through shaming others for their perceived ignorance, all the while they use conflict as a way to profit off of social issues emotionally, politically, and financially in many cases.

Know the difference: A social justice warrior is someone who capitalizes in some way, whether it be emotional, political, or financial, off of a lack of social justice. These individuals are regularly partisan, and would seek to control your rights just to stand on your throat. Whereas someone who is seeking social justice simply wants to have a fair and impartial conversation with you about your beliefs and stances, free from disparaging and insults directed toward anyone.

Now I hate to do this, because it should be completely unnecessary, but I'm just going to come out and say it in big bold letters for you as if we were back in preschool.

If you don't have anything nice to say, you probably shouldn't say it at all!

To be fair to anyone who disagrees with this sentiment, such as myself, I will state that perception and intention are key in deciding what is not nice, constructive, or progressive. However, name-calling should have been a habit disciplined out of you as early as preschool and I'm not about to argue with anyone who would use such tactics; for example, social justice warriors are the type to resort to name-calling and I don't want to be associated with them.

No one likes to be invalidated, especially when that invalidation comes in the form of invalid tactics such as name-calling. Look at what occurred with Obama when he was first elected, getting called the anti-christ by radical Christian social justice warriors. Observe how Trump was referred to as, "Literally the next Hitler," during his run for the Presidency. Heck even Bill Clinton, perhaps rightfully despite no guilty verdicts being rendered, is still getting called a rapist any time his name is mentioned.

Don't be a part of the problem, we all deserve social justice!