Talk:social justice

RFD discussion: August 2022
As defined at the moment, it's a simple SOP. justice: "The ideal of fairness, impartiality" + social: "Of or relating to society" Sartma (talk) 12:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, LEMMING applies (Oxford, M-W, Dictionary.com) and also I disagree that the glosses you provided actually comprise a definition for, our definition is lacking. - TheDaveRoss  13:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @TheDaveRoss: WT:LEMMING is not automatically applied, though. I don't understand what your comment on my glosses means, but our current definition of social justice is "Fairness in society". That definition is literally just a rewording of "social justice", where social means "of/in/about/etc. society" and justice means "fairness". If social justice in English means more than just the meaning given by the sum of its parts, i.e. more than "Fairness in society", then we should correct the definition. As that entry is at the moment, though, I don't see how it can be more than a SoP. Sartma (talk) 13:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That is correct, LEMMING is not a bright-line test, it is a criteria which can be used as a justification discretionally, and I think this is a case where we ought to apply it, hence my vote. I also think that the term is more specific than the current definition, likely to a degree that it would not be SOP, the current definition is inadequate which makes it look SOP. - TheDaveRoss  14:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @TheDaveRoss: I think "social justice" is used with its SoP meaning in the vast majority of cases. Its meaning really is just a general "Fairness in society". All details about "what social justice actually mean" must be given on the side and can't be inferred. There are too many people in history who used those words to mean too many different things for the phrase itself to mean more than just the sum of its parts. See Sartma (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per TheDaveRoss. AG202 (talk) 13:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per TheDaveRoss. Binarystep (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. As TheDaveRoss has pointed out, the current definition is notably lacking, failing to convey the full scope of the term. This is also one of those terms that serves as a lynchpin for other definitions (it has its own topical category). It's simpler to just link to our social justice entry than to have to explain what the term means every time it is referenced in another definition. (But hopefully we can formulate a better definition!). WordyAndNerdy (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong keep as idiomatic. I think there's a case to be made that in 2000s-era usage the term has a much more specific meaning, referring to a particular progressive political ideology/movement/coalition, not just the abstract idea of "fairness in society". Perusing the entries in Category:en:Social justice should provide some evidence for this. Even prior to the 21st century it was idiomatic, as the history section on shows. 98.170.164.88 03:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I would still argue that the category is wrong. All terms belonging to that category are about "social-justice activism", not just "social justice" per se. If one didn't know anything about social justice and only saw that category would get a completely wrong idea of what social justice is, possibly equating social justice with social justice activism, two completely different things...
 * Anyway, apparently I'm alone here, so I'll drop it. Sartma (talk) 09:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep but maybe work the usage notes into the definition, if necessary. Equinox ◑ 23:55, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:98.170.164.88. &mdash; Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * RFD kept. But I don't understand what "Fairness in society" is supposed to mean. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)