Davis Aurini - Justice Versus Social Justice

Aug. 27, 2014 - Davis Aurini

18:19

Justice Versus Social Justice

The Sarkeesian Effect: Inside the World of Social Justice Warriors http://www.patreon.com/thesarkeesianeffect The article which argues that a couple of indie film makers who despise corrupt journalism are comparable to Isis terrorists: http://badassdigest.com/2014/08/26/video-games-misogyny-and-terrorism-a-guide-to-assholes/ My blog: http://www.staresattheworld.com/ My Twitter: http://twitter.com/Aurini Download in MP3 Format: http://www.clipconverter.cc/

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	So as I'm sure most of you know, Jordan and I launched our Patreon campaign for our upcoming documentary, The Sarkeesian Effect, not four days ago.
	We haven't even hit twenty percent of our funding goal yet, and already the social justice warriors are going nuts, and they've already mustered a counterattack.
	It's an article earlier today by Andrew Todd that compared us to ISIS terrorists and said that we're all misogynists.
	As to be expected.
	It's a rather lengthy piece, it's linked down below, but I'm impressed with his ability to put it out so quickly.
	We must have these people running scared, almost as if the light of truth is just terrifying and destructive to their movement, as if there are a lot of lies for us to uncover.
	But anyway, the topic of this video is the difference between justice and social justice.
	And this is inspired by one of the phrases that Todd uses in that article.
	And it is warrior, I'd rather be a social justice warrior.
	And see, I find that absolutely hilarious, because that is the exact same thing as saying nationalist, I'd rather be a national socialist.
	Thank you.
	I'll tell you, what this all boils down to really is that nobody really knows what social justice is.
	You know, a lot of people hear the term social justice, and it sounds like a nice thing.
	You know, social is a nice thing, justice is a nice thing, and yet you get the sense that it has something to do with systemic problems, trying to address those problems.
	So it sounds like a nice thing to those people.
	Those who have looked at it a bit more closely, they notice that social justice always seems to harm the people that it's claiming to help.
	You know, feminism certainly hasn't made women any happier.
	You know, they used to have a choice about whether they wanted to work or wanted to stay at home.
	You know, nowadays, they have to work.
	You know, somebody's making a profit off of that, but it ain't the ladies.
	No thing, no difference, rather, with the black race faders.
	You know, you go back fifty years ago, and blacks were better off overall, despite the racism, than they are now.
	You know, you had solid families, you had community pride in black communities despite being treated like second class citizens.
	And the social justice movement takes control of this.
	What do you have now?
	broken-down ghettos and shame, but that's just a description of what they do.
	It's not an explanation of what they are, of what social justice is, and how it differs from just plain old justice.
	Because believe me, these are two completely separate and opposed ideas.
	But to explain why, we're going to have to talk about Christian theology.
	Because the social justice movement, it really is a product of post-Christian metaphysics.
	Now, Christianity was always very clear that there were two levels upon which justice happened.
	There was man's level of justice.
	You know, this is justice, you know, done by the king, you know, laws written by the king.
	And this justice doesn't always make sense.
	You know, it's not always the optimal outcome, but it's always logical.
	You know, once a law is made, you can't throw it away.
	You can't just change your opinion on laws.
	Laws are laws, obey them, or you get hit with a stick.
	Not perfect.
	Nothing in this world is perfect, but it was least predictable.
	Then you had divine justice.
	You know, this comes from the concept that no man can weigh another man's soul.
	Only God can do that.
	And one of the best examples I heard of this was from CS Lewis.
	And he discussed two men.
	One of them is very strong, the other is a puny weakling.
	And if these men are driven to anger, not just anger, but rage, violent, toxic rage, the strong man might end up killing an entire city in his madness, whereas the puny man will just be laughed at.
	Now for man's law, the puny man, we don't do anything about that.
	There's nothing to be done.
	He didn't hurt anybody.
	Whereas the strong man, you know, we put out a bounty for his arrest because he killed a bunch of people.
	So that's man's law.
	But God's law, actually looking at their souls, maybe he looks those two souls and he sees the exact same crime.
	Like their anger was the crime in God's mind.
	You know, the physical consequences is what we mere mortals have to deal with.
	But from God's perspective, it's the internal thing that matters.
	It's the soul, that we should all be striving to be better people.
	And so a rich man that does something evil can do a lot more damage to the world than a poor man, but that both have the same journey to try and become a better person.
	Now the post-Christian world that we're living in, what we have done is we've taken these metaphysical theological ideas and we've tried to drag them down to the physical world.
	And social justice in particular, you can point to John Rawls, an ethicist from the early, published his book, Theory of Justice in 1971, if I recall correctly.
	And you read through this book, and if it were a book of theology, if it were a book talking about why you shouldn't necessarily judge another person, if they steal from you, you should call the police and send them to prison.
	But you shouldn't hate them.
	You should say, I don't know what they were going through when they decided to steal from me.
	So I'm not going to pretend that I'm perfect, because I'm not perfect.
	I don't know what they're going through.
	Maybe they were under more pressure than me.
	Maybe they were more tempted to steal than I've ever been.
	So in the physical world, they go to prison.
	In the physical world, they're a criminal you're not.
	But in the metaphysical world, I don't know.
	I'm not going to cast judgment on another person.
	I'm going to judge them in court as a thief, but I'm not going to judge their soul.
	Well, Ross tried to take these principles and bring them into the physical world.
	The principles of his book, A Theory of Justice, are equality and equitability.
	And see, the problem with these words is that equality, that's something that's in your soul.
	All souls are equally important.
	All men obviously are not.
	Some men are strong, some are weak.
	Some are good looking, some are ugly, some are smart, some are stupid.
	People are not equal.
	Equality before the law means the law is the same for everybody.
	From king to commoner, the law is the same.
	But king and commoner are not alike.
	So by saying all people are equal when they obviously aren't, and failing to specify that he's talking about the soul, he's talking about a metaphysical concept, not measurable reality.
	By failing to specify that, we then come up with a quandary that all people obviously aren't equal, so we have to make them all equal.
	And equity.
	You know, what is equity?
	Let me rephrase that.
	Instead of equity, let's say self-actualization.
	What is self-actualization?
	For one person, maybe self-actualization involves pushing their body to the limit and becoming a famous athlete.
	For another person, their self-actualization is realizing that they're never going to be a professional athlete and settling down to suburbia and having some kids.
	You know, I can't say what their self-actualization is.
	I can't say what their equity is.
	You know, to dumb it down even more, maybe one person really likes cake and the other person doesn't like cake very much.
	You know, so if I split the cake into two halves and give one half to each, that's not equity.
	But see, I can't figure out what that equity is.
	I can't tell if this person likes cake more than this person.
	And so maybe you're seeing how this turns in to the dregs of the social justice movement on Tumblr.
	You know, if we embrace as a physical principle that some people like cake more than others and so we should apportion the cake to the person that likes the most, soon enough you have the person that whines the loudest gets the biggest piece of cake.
	So by trying to take these abstract theological principles and put them into practice, what you're guaranteeing is that the worst people are the ones that profit, not the best people.
	It's the whiner that gets the cake, not the person that actually really likes cake.
	And furthermore, you've just destroyed justice.
	Because justice as a system, the whole principle is that it cannot self contradict.
	Every law needs to be built on previous laws.
	It needs to be a logical progression forward.
	Every so often we run into situations that don't quite fit the law.
	And this is where we build upon it.
	This is what case law is.
	Perhaps you've heard the saying the example that proves or the exception that proves the rule.
	Well, this is an archaic definition of the word prove, which means test, as in prove yourself, test yourself, prove the law, test the law.
	Does this exception actually point out a problem with the law, in which case we need to amend it?
	Or is it not an exception at all, and so we continue to follow the law?
	Either way, what you get is a body of legal work which you can predict if you know the basic foundational principles and they are clear and logical, not based upon high minded ideals.
	You know, you can't make niceness a law.
	What does being nice mean?
	You can't make that a law.
	But you can define what theft is.
	You can define what murder is.
	And if you know the basic rules underlying all the laws, you can predict the rest of them.
	And so ignorance is not an excuse because just being aware of the law is enough to know to reasonably guess what the law is.
	The result might be something stupid at times, but it is predictable stupid.
	You know, there might be a rule saying you can't do a U turn, and that rule shouldn't apply because it's in the middle of it, but you know it's against the law.
	Even if it's silly, you know it's against the law.
	Whereas trying to take these high minded ideals of perfect justice, of divine justice and bring it down into the real world, what you get is incoherency.
	You get the person that complains the loudest, they are the biggest victim.
	Even if they hear the person victimizing others.
	After all, what do bullies normally do?
	The bullies, as soon as an authority shows up, always try and justify their actions.
	You know, say that they were the victim there, or they weren't really, they were just kidding, what have you.
	And so if the teacher makes their decision as to who's the bully based upon who feels the most, they're going to side with the bully seven times out of ten.
	As opposed to saying it doesn't matter why you hit him in the shoulder, it's wrong to hit.
	So we're hitting you with a stick.
	And so this brings us back to the first statement.
	Warrior, I'd rather be a social justice warrior.
	Well, the thing about a warrior is that a warrior is honest.
	A warrior isn't necessarily a good warrior, but they are a warrior.
	They are what they say they are.
	So they've got the basic grounding of virtue at the very least.
	Same thing with the nationalist.
	If somebody says I am a nationalist, and they mean that in the most simplistic sense, that they will support their country for good or ill, then you know what they are.
	If they say they're a national socialist, that is beyond I support my country, even if my country sometimes does wrong.
	A national socialist says I support my country, and my country cannot be wrong by definition.
	If we had to kill 12 million people because of our national socialism, well, those 12 people, those 12 million people had it coming.
	It's all good.
	The same thing with the social justice warrior.
	You know, you get Rawls starting off, and he's trying talking high-minded ideals about making everybody equal, getting more equity in society, so on.
	But eventually, you get corruption, you get lies, you get manipulation, and it can't be manipulation since it's pursuing equity.
	Even though the whole idea is to try and stop people from hurting each other, once you say that anything called social justice is social justice, and that is the logical conclusion of equity, at that point, anybody claiming to be an agent of social justice is allowed to do anything they want to achieve the ends.
	They are not held back by rules, they are not held back by laws, they are not held back by internal consistency.
	Instead, they're free agents to do whatever they think feels good with no accountability to themselves, to society, and certainly not the God they stopped believing in 200 years ago.
	Arena out, folks, and remember, if you support the Sarkeesian effect, if we get this made, we are going to make a major blow against this toxin that's infesting our civilization, that's making all of us sick.
	That's what we are trying to do is get some honest light and truth all over all of this.
	Some basic logic and decency to return to our society.
	These people are running scared because even though they can't understand it, even though they've never been taught to think in a rational manner, instinctively they can sense the storm is coming.

▲