Social Justice

[Aim64C]

A friend and I were recently discussing the topic of public misbehavior. It had come to our attention that people would act completely inappropriate in society, yet go almost completely unchallenged by those around them.

Now - I was raised to be respectful to those around me, and to adhere to my own moral compass. While I've had a few moments where I can say that I was off the mark with that - my environment doesn't usually do much to shape my behavior (or, rather, my parents were the environment that shaped my behavior, before - and it's fairly well established by now).

Anyway - there used to be consequences in society. If you put on obstructive, ignorant displays - people isolated you, or, in some areas, you a group of men would approach you and tell you to get your act together (further conflict was rare).

This lack of social response to problems has bred behavior like the one shown, below:



Notice, however, that once a consequence is administered (the taser) - the woman ceases being a disturbance.

This is basic psychological conditioning. Without it, we have allowed society to run well outside its bounds.

Think about it - how often do you sit there and ignore someone's inappropriate behavior (such as cutting in line)? Moreover, because so few bother to address these people's behavior, when they are confronted, how often do they attempt to start an argument while others remain unsupportive of the person who called them out?

These trouble-makers have begun to believe that they are invincible and that consequences no longer apply to them. They can act completely deplorable and get what they want because others don't want to deal with it. We have, effectively, allowed our society to be held hostage by the people who behave in obstructive and destructive manners.

Am I on the mark?

Off the mark?

Were you expecting a different topic when I said "social justice?"

Edit: video tag issue - resolved.

 

[Ciao]

I understand what you mean. Bad behavior has become tolerable in certain areas. Its a shame.

(Btw, use the Insert Video button instead of the YouTube button)

[video=youtube;8DrzCVAJtDw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DrzCVAJtDw[/video]

 

[UchihaBrat]

Hmmm~

People, not being confronted with consequences when having done something socially unacceptable, do like to explore the extent of their "freedom", probably as a means to figure out where they stand and what to expect, still, as we could see in the video; 'correcting' themselves after being confronted with the consequences. Something we 'enforce' as fellows of a greater collective.
- I've noticed examples here on the base myself, nothing physical and directly confrontative(in a way) as we're on the web of course. It's fairly easy to ignore if it's something minor, as opposed to real life where the attitude differs a bit, given the obvious difference. Still some similarities though, fundamentally at least.

The fact that the guy had to take out a taser and use it to silence her, proves just how much awry society has progressed, moreover, as you say and as was noticed in the video: out of the onlookers and those joining in, no one really bothered to look at reality; her kids were in the wrong(I'm assuming this, as I didn't get to see that part, which is actually an essential one for my argument...), and he was merely reprimanding them for that. Somehow it seems as if the 'my business are mine, not yours, back off, I'll deal with it/my family, back off' attitude also applies to social environments, where the public is affected and they aren't the only actors... I also do doubt there would have been any rebukes from the mothers' side, considering their approach to it all.

I would have understood if they had that attitude when in their home and the guy was a guest, but in public...
They're applying, as it appears, the 'blood is thicker than water' notion where it doesn't really belong, and as for the reason as to why something like this happened to begin with: I think you're fairly correct, but not that what you mention covers it all. Not saying my reasoning will as well, as I believe a correct representation of the causes would take too long to write down, in detail at least.

I'd say it is partly because of the lack of public response towards inappropriate behaviour in public, but also because our society today is too focused on the individual(and family as well).
- As I see it, we don't really think in terms of greater collectives anymore, but in terms of me and my family, my friends – those I hold dear, essentially, something which is supported by media and whatnot. But be it culturally conditioned or not, I think the attitude gained of only caring for me and my closests, affects how we act in public as well. That, is partly regulated by reprimands and so on, but I wouldn't say it is as simple, because I believe it lies in HOW the reprimands are by nature, if any at all.
As I see it, we rarely take time to sit down and explain why we shouldn't do certain things, especially with our children, but also adults whom practically are acting as such anyway. I believe it boils down to modern society's focus, as I mentioned earlier, me as opposed to you. Besides, who would want to sit down and talk to an adult whom could harm you both mentally and physically, as he/she doesn't see why he/she should be reprimanded to begin with!
The only ones whom seem able to talk to someone who's done something, are those they consider/ feel to be close or attach some authoritative label to somehow, a feeling I believe is turning for the worse, where those can't do that anymore either.

It's all just a big mess, but not entirely without hope, if you know which buttons to push to make people understand, or want to understand, an ability I believe parents are beginning to lose more and more, causing us to tumble further down into madness.

 

[YowYan]

Seen that video before. That's about as ghetto as one can get. Really bad influence for the children as you can see ;p
I'm pro-tasering, but then there's this issue with power-driven cops that taser ppl for no legit reason.

 

[drknght]

If "social justice" is the same thing as "justice", then why putting there an extra word?

 

[Aim64C]

If "social justice" is the same thing as "justice", then why putting there an extra word?

Because there is a differnce between the justice rendered by society and individuals acting as part of it as opposed to institutional or legal justice.

 

[drknght]

Because there is a differnce between the justice rendered by society and individuals acting as part of it as opposed to institutional or legal justice.

If social justice is something different from justice, then it should be called "injustice".

 

[Aim64C]

If social justice is something different from justice, then it should be called "injustice".

I know you're new to this English thing, but the term you are looking for is "Adjective."

An adjective is a word placed before a noun or verb to add further detail (descriptive words placed before a verb are often called adverbs - but they fall under the blanket definition of adjective).

Thus, "Social" is added as an adjective to "Justice" to further define and categorize it as being of or related to the concept of "social."

What you are playing with is what we call a "prefix." A prefix is appended to the front of a word, often to change or redirect its meaning.

The root word, in this case, is 'justice.' 'In' when used as a prefix, means the subject of the root word is negative, or against, the concept identified by the root. An "injustice" is, thus, something that is not justice or even acts against it. Depending upon the context and specific wording, it is synonymous with "Anti."

There is a prefix 'a' - when appended to a word, it means 'devoid' or 'not of.' For example, abiogenesis is the idea that something had origins outside of biological sources. It can be considered synonymous with "non."

So, no, "injustice" does not work. Don't try to play semantics with me.

 

[drknght]

I know you're new to this English thing, but the term you are looking for is "Adjective."

An adjective is a word placed before a noun or verb to add further detail (descriptive words placed before a verb are often called adverbs - but they fall under the blanket definition of adjective).

Thus, "Social" is added as an adjective to "Justice" to further define and categorize it as being of or related to the concept of "social."

What you are playing with is what we call a "prefix." A prefix is appended to the front of a word, often to change or redirect its meaning.

The root word, in this case, is 'justice.' 'In' when used as a prefix, means the subject of the root word is negative, or against, the concept identified by the root. An "injustice" is, thus, something that is not justice or even acts against it. Depending upon the context and specific wording, it is synonymous with "Anti."

There is a prefix 'a' - when appended to a word, it means 'devoid' or 'not of.' For example, abiogenesis is the idea that something had origins outside of biological sources. It can be considered synonymous with "non."

So, no, "injustice" does not work. Don't try to play semantics with me.

So, is stealing money from the rich and giving it to the poor referred as "social justice"? If yes, then it is INJUSTICE!!!

 

[Aim64C]

So, is stealing money from the rich and giving it to the poor referred as "social justice"? If yes, then it is INJUSTICE!!!

Be honest with me.

Did you read the thread?

 

[drknght]

Be honest with me.

Did you read the thread?

Yes, I did, and I agree with it. Bitch totally deserved to be "charged".