[notacoward]

> Ultimately, the point that he's belaboring is that the "social justice" movement as he understands it doesn't rest on any fixed value

That's no more true for social justice than for any other view or principle held by many. There is in fact a large established body of work exploring what social justice means and exploring the concept in excruciating detail, from the Englightenment through Rawls, Nozick, and others. Yes, everyone brings their own personal interpretation, but so does every liberal, white nationalist, feminist conservative, Nazi, libertarian, etc. Singling out social-justice theory, when it's among the most developed of these ideas, is absurd.

> So the challenge is to either disagree, and identify fixed moral positions/values that support "social justice"; or to agree that social justice is moral relativism

As I said, I often do that, but not within an opponent's frame according to their priorities and subject to their judgment of which answers are sufficient.

> third parties who can't tell the difference may find it convincing

And if it's called out clearly enough, those same third parties might find it singularly unconvincing and be put off by the attempt to instigate a false debate.

[blakdawg]

> Yes, everyone brings their own personal interpretation

It is fascinating (and illustrative) that you are apparently unable to even imagine something that isn't moral relativism.

You are missing the point. What if everyone doesn't bring their own personal interpretation?

[notacoward]

It's equally fascinating that you call things moral relativism that aren't. Handy slur, isn't it? "Moral relativism" refers to the belief that morality depends on historical context. Somebody can believe that absolute right and wrong exists independent of that context, utterly rejecting relativism, without subjugating their own moral judgment to someone else's. They can be absolutely inflexible on matters of principle and on how they apply it to specific situations, without copying from someone else. It's called independence of thought and belief. It's called liberty, not relativism. Only sheep are otherwise.

[civilian]

Heh. "There's no field more studied!" That's great, but still... I think it's such a bad strategy to be hostile about people who are learning about SJ. If you think that Social Justice is persuasive and morally right, then wouldn't responding to Alex's blog post be a great starting point for an introductory post about SJ?

This is one of my favorite XKCDs: https://xkcd.com/1053/

[notacoward]

Yeah, and maybe if Alex elucidated his views that would be a great starting point. Or if you elucidated yours. Why should anyone but you do all the work? Pay me and I'll write for you. I don't work for free.