Universal Social Justice

From P2P Foundation
Revision as of 16:48, 20 November 2020 by Mbauwens (talk | contribs) (Created page with " '''= James Lindsay et al., i.e. the group of scholars around New Discourses, present USJ as an alternative approach to justice that avoids the pitfalls of the 'Critical Socia...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

= James Lindsay et al., i.e. the group of scholars around New Discourses, present USJ as an alternative approach to justice that avoids the pitfalls of the 'Critical Social Justice' ideology (what we call in this wiki: Group Identity Theory)


Helen Plukrose et al. :

"Where USJ differs from CSJ regarding this is that USJ recognizes that the root of the problem is not directly attributable to any particular group of people/oppressors. It stems instead from the complex economic system we have jointly created, with corresponding emergent behavior that is only loosely predictable. Right now that system is behaving in a way that is overly concentrating wealth.

A core principle of USJ must thus be a recognition of the existence of objective reality, and its effects on all of us. CSJ denies the existence of this reality because it has to—otherwise numerous aspects of its claims become demonstrably falsifiable. This denial of reality is also why its solutions won’t work; problems are rarely solved if their causes are incorrectly identified.

One example of this denial is that of biology with respect to gender. If some psychological differences between the genders due to biology are present on a statistical basis, corresponding differences in the statistics of STEM representation by gender can be (and are) explained without appealing to oppression. This totally defeats the oppressor narrative, and thus biology cannot be allowed by CSJ. (The flip-side is also a feature of CSJ: if such differences exist, acknowledging them could potentially be misused to justify oppression, so they cannot be allowed by CSJ.)

Another example is that of effects of cultural variation on income levels. If we acknowledge that the culture of one group results, on average, in half as much time spent studying as that of another, then this is sufficient to explain statistical differences in financial outcomes. This explanation also runs counter to the CSJ narrative, and thus the importance of cultural differences on outcomes must be denied. Recognizing objective reality thus allows USJ to reject the oppressor/victim mentality, which is key to actually making progress.

A Universal Social Justice also must reaffirm our commitment to some of the principles that have resulted in the incredible progress that actually has been made. We need to reaffirm that everyone must be treated equally without regard to any non-behavioral characteristics (e.g. race/gender/sexual orientation), and explicitly reject discrimination. Critical Social Justice seeks to create a new caste system with preferential behavior towards those of higher status legally enshrined in it; this must be stopped. We must also explicitly support freedom of speech, having faith that good ideas will overcome bad ones in the marketplace of ideas. We must also address solutions towards financial inequality, admitting there’s an issue and experimenting with ways to ameliorate it, such as Universal Basic Income, or other changes in our economic system. Finally, we must work against tribalism, minimizing that which divides us and reaffirming the common characteristics shared by all humanity.

Universal Social Justice—applicable to all—needs to be developed. Let’s build it, so that institutions (and individuals) have a concrete alternative to Critical Social Justice that will help us get back on the track to making progress for everyone." (https://newdiscourses.com/2020/04/universal-social-justice-alternative-critical-social-justice/)