A key to grasping what’s wrong with modern social justice theory can be seen in how it treats unquestionably small/vulnerable/oppressed groups that are economically successful. It’s essential that SJ hide that even brutal oppression doesn’t automatically imply economic failure.
I almost never hear about concern for Ahmadis, overseas Chinese, Sikhs, Jews, Parsis, Sindhis, African Gujaratis, Ismailis, Armenians. Why is that?? Well it seems to be because Social Justice(tm) is *not* primarily about oppression and vulnerability. It’s about redistribution.
@EricRWeinstein "As an ideological marker, social justice always works best when it is not too sharply defined."
@EricRWeinstein Classic reasoning - if they succeed its in spite of the system, if they don't, its because. Either way, the system is the problem. For their own definition of 'system' and their own way to 'solve' it.
@EricRWeinstein Also China 1927-1980 so horrible that SJ theory predict people who themselves or parents lived through would do terribly by nearly all metrics.
@EricRWeinstein has been said: <<perhaps successfull people have always been sacrificial animals>>; the way of interpreting things you mention, is in part, a not wanting to see that you can get what you want, that every unrealized dream is not the injustice of others; elites are a minority.
@EricRWeinstein Sleight of hand, a magician's misdirection "Look here, not there!" Sometimes for good reasons, sometimes not