That is merely dishonest

No I'm conflating radicals with the most pure enactment of social justice.

forcing equality of outcome because that's "fair"

You'd still be wrong

"You can't be racist against whites" was the last drop

The radicals here, have a fucked up world view in the first place

that's equity, because you can say "it's about equity" and they can say "it's about equity" and you're both being honest

Based on derrada and foucalt

Where the world is based on systems of power

because nebulous bullshit can be used for good and bad, again like the religion comparison

but the nebulous bullshit boils down to "acquiring justice for people through means other than the actual justice system"

See, I'd describe a good social justice advocate as people like Stephen fry, or MLK

stephen fry is not a fucking social justice advocate

The bad ones, someone like PZ Myers

PZ myers is

@Beef Taquitos He classifies himself as such

He said good social justice, you dink.

His openning statement on the munk debate

there is no such thing as good social justice

that's like dry water or cold fire

😐

Then you are dishonest.

Don't be obtuse.

it's like *ethical child porn*(you guys might not get the Destiny reference there)

Don't be obtuse.

says the person repeating themselves.

I wouldn't have to.

But you continued.

Social justice is a cancer. The only good social justice is no social justice.

Anything that purports to be "justice" besides actual justice is garbage

Yo folks if Social Justice is a religion then Tim is agnostic? <:TimThink:482277772497125378>

~~: Prove me wrong.~~

sorry, that's not the meme

: Change my mind.

Equality of opportunity existed before "social justice". Equality of outcome is what social justice was created for.

No that's communism

He and you are wrong if you think it's about equality of opportunity.

Vague definitions is a problem. I've noticed that SJW people don't think equality of opportunity and outcome are different. If I remember correctly Thomas Smith said he was for equality of opportunity, but when pressed on it he said we measure equality of opportunity by the outcomes. Sorry, I might be side tracking the discussion you guys were having.

Same thing.

Well people having terrible understanding of *language and therefore terrible conclusions is pretty typical, which again is why I think he's arrived at a bad definition of social justice.

He's pretty reasonable so I don't think he's got bad logical processes