The problem is that there doesn’t seem to be a strong movement for Maintaining Decent Treatment for All People.
Well, usually that doesn’t fall under the rubric of a political movement at all. We just call it civility—a core moral value of any physical community where people seek to be protected from bodily harm and thrive in a nurturing environment.
If there is any political question here, it’s who or what should be included under “people”. Folks who are similar enough to you in e.g. culture that you can intuitively trust them? Any Homosapien’s? Any Hominidae (i.e. including other Great Apes)? Other animal species on a case-by-case basis, such as dolphins and whales? Robots and other man-made intelligences? Corporations?
But it’s quite unclear how deferring to the so-called “social justice movement” would be helpful in approaching these hard questions. It seems that their “politics” is much too simplistic, so they just ignore them.
You’ve underestimated what a Maintaining Decent Treatment for All People Movement would cover.
It might be pacifist. It would certainly be very cautious about war. It would be pro-refugee.
And push for a rational justice system. civil behavior by police, and good prison conditions.
Oppose domestic violence, and be emphatic that this applies to men, women, and children.
Oppose bullying, both in schools and workplaces.
I’m not sure I’ve included all the major categories.
A lot of this isn’t being done reliably, and some of it faces a lot of opposition
I’m not going to say that the social justice movement is the only source of valuable information, but it’s done some good work in pointing out that there’s violence which isn’t taken seriously—for example, violence against trans people.
For another source (overlapping SJ, I think), check out work being done by whores for them to be treated as normal parts of civil society.
There’s a lot of work to be done even if you aren’t worried about apes and dolphins.
Sure, and political/social movements exist which pursue all of these goals. But the underlying moral principle is very much not a matter of ideology or any political “plank”, even though ‘left-wing’- or ‘progressive’- leaning folks are perhaps more likely to care about it in a political sense. Jonathan Haidt is of course very clear on this, and the general idea is older than Haidt’s work—check out George Lakoff’s Moral Politics or Jane Jacobs’s Systems of Survival.
This is probably one reason why the so-called “SJ movement” went so clearly astray in trying to piggyback on any and all of these quite diverse causes, and somehow join them all in some kind of ‘big tent’ movement. It doesn’t work like that - ‘big tent’ organizations are always a result of coalition-forming within existing civic institutions and processes. Movements need more flexibility, as well as a stronger commitment from their participants.
I don’t know whether anyone noticed my list is basically libertarian. It’s a very challenging agenda, but it just covers allowing freedom and protection from violence. It doesn’t cover ongoing help for people who can’t fully take care of themselves.
Well, usually that doesn’t fall under the rubric of a political movement at all. We just call it civility—a core moral value of any physical community where people seek to be protected from bodily harm and thrive in a nurturing environment.
If there is any political question here, it’s who or what should be included under “people”. Folks who are similar enough to you in e.g. culture that you can intuitively trust them? Any Homosapien’s? Any Hominidae (i.e. including other Great Apes)? Other animal species on a case-by-case basis, such as dolphins and whales? Robots and other man-made intelligences? Corporations?
But it’s quite unclear how deferring to the so-called “social justice movement” would be helpful in approaching these hard questions. It seems that their “politics” is much too simplistic, so they just ignore them.
You’ve underestimated what a Maintaining Decent Treatment for All People Movement would cover.
It might be pacifist. It would certainly be very cautious about war. It would be pro-refugee.
And push for a rational justice system. civil behavior by police, and good prison conditions.
Oppose domestic violence, and be emphatic that this applies to men, women, and children.
Oppose bullying, both in schools and workplaces.
I’m not sure I’ve included all the major categories.
A lot of this isn’t being done reliably, and some of it faces a lot of opposition
I’m not going to say that the social justice movement is the only source of valuable information, but it’s done some good work in pointing out that there’s violence which isn’t taken seriously—for example, violence against trans people.
For another source (overlapping SJ, I think), check out work being done by whores for them to be treated as normal parts of civil society.
There’s a lot of work to be done even if you aren’t worried about apes and dolphins.
Sure, and political/social movements exist which pursue all of these goals. But the underlying moral principle is very much not a matter of ideology or any political “plank”, even though ‘left-wing’- or ‘progressive’- leaning folks are perhaps more likely to care about it in a political sense. Jonathan Haidt is of course very clear on this, and the general idea is older than Haidt’s work—check out George Lakoff’s Moral Politics or Jane Jacobs’s Systems of Survival.
This is probably one reason why the so-called “SJ movement” went so clearly astray in trying to piggyback on any and all of these quite diverse causes, and somehow join them all in some kind of ‘big tent’ movement. It doesn’t work like that - ‘big tent’ organizations are always a result of coalition-forming within existing civic institutions and processes. Movements need more flexibility, as well as a stronger commitment from their participants.
I don’t know whether anyone noticed my list is basically libertarian. It’s a very challenging agenda, but it just covers allowing freedom and protection from violence. It doesn’t cover ongoing help for people who can’t fully take care of themselves.