If you’ve watched the news or followed politics chances are you’ve heard the term Orwellian thrown around in one context or another. But have you ever stopped to think about what it really means, or why it’s used so often?
The term was named after British author Eric Blair known by his pen name George Orwell. Because his most famous work, the novel “1984,” depicts an oppressive society under a totalitarian government, “Orwellian” is often used simply to mean authoritarian. But using the term in this way not only fails to fully convey Orwell’s message, it actually risks doing precisely what he tried to warn against.
Orwell was indeed opposed to all forms of tyranny, spending much of his life fighting against anti-democratic forces of both the left-wing and the right. But he was also deeply concerned with how such ideologies proliferate. And one of his most profound insights was the importance that language plays in shaping our thoughts and opinions.
The government of “1984”‘s Oceania controls its people’s actions and speech in some ways that are obvious. Their every move and word is watched and heard, and the threat of what happens to those who step out of line is always looming overhead.
Other forms of control are not so obvious. The population is inundated with a constant barrage of propaganda made up of historical facts and statistics manufactured in the Ministry of Truth. The Ministry of Peace is the military. Labor camps are called “Joycamps.”
Political prisoners are detained and tortured in the Ministry of Love. This deliberate irony is an example of doublespeak, when words are used not to convey meaning but to undermine it, corrupting the very ideas they refer to. The regime’s control of language goes even further, eliminating words from the English language to create the official dialect of Newspeak, a crudely limited collection of acronyms and simple concrete nouns lacking any words complex enough to encourage nuanced or critical thought.
This has an effect on the psyche Orwell calls, “Doublethink,” a hypnotic state of cognitive dissonance in which one is compelled to disregard their own perception in place of the officially dictated version of events, leaving the individual completely dependent on the State’s definition of reality itself.
The result is a world in which even the privacy of one’s own thought process is violated, where one may be found guilty of thoughtcrime by talking in their sleep, and keeping a diary or having a love affair equals a subversive act of rebellion.
This might sound like something that can only happen in totalitarian regimes, but Orwell was warning us about the potential for this occurring even in democratic societies. And this is why “authoritarian” alone does not “Orwellian” make.
In his essay, “Politics and the English Language,” he described techniques like using pretentious words to project authority, or making atrocities sound acceptable by burying them in euphemisms and convoluted sentence structures.
But even more mundane abuses of language can affect the way we think about things.
The words you see and hear in everyday advertising have been crafted to appeal to you and affect your behavior, as have the soundbites and talking points of political campaigns which rarely present the most nuanced perspective on the issues. And the way that we use ready-made phrases and responses gleaned from media reports or copied from the Internet makes it easy to get away with not thinking too deeply or questioning your assumptions.
So the next time you hear someone use the word Orwellian, pay close attention.
If they’re talking about the deceptive and manipulative use of language, they’re on the right track.
If they’re talking about mass surveillance and intrusive government, they’re describing something authoritarian but not necessarily Orwellian. And if they use it as an all-purpose word for any ideas they dislike, it’s possible their statements are more Orwellian than whatever it is they’re criticizing.
Words have the power to shape thought. Language is the currency of politics, forming the basis of society from the most common, everyday interactions to the highest ideals. Orwell urged us to protect our language because ultimately our ability to think and communicate clearly is what stands between us and a world where war is peace and freedom is slavery.
“Department of Defense” is always a good one, implying that our nations are never the military aggressors (as that would require a “Department of Offense”).
Exactly and all the terminology then relating to that, like “Matters of defense”, “Defense spending”, etc.
I read 1984 like 2 years ago for the first time and was wondering why is this book so liked, because i did not liked it at all. So i was searching if i can find some criticism on it or if i am alone. And so i was reading and searching for reviews and that’s when i found his and was kinda happy that many issues that i had with 1984 were mentioned in his review since i admired Asimov’s work a lot for almost a decade.
Maybe the reason why i did not liked it so much is that i read about dictatorship, propaganda and manipulation of the people before reading Orwell so it was not such a new idea to me. You just can control people much better with manipulation than with oppression. Illusion of freedom is much more effective than direct control.
There was nothing surprising for me in 1984. Parts of it seemed trivial and parts just seemed absurd and not very thought through and the most of the rest was just boring. And ending was not surprising at all, it was just gory and difficult to read.
There were very few things to like about 1984 for me but i thought that i would enjoy it before reading it. The main problem for me was that i just don’t think that humans work that way. I am aware that people can act like animals or just in purely evil fashion and that they can be controlled, manipulated and so on, but there are just very few specific ways to make them act like that and the one Orwell described was not one of them for the most part. So for me, there were basically no humans in that book (generally speaking) because population in 1984 think and act in a way that humans cant.
In reality the society would not be stable (just imagine the mental issues (paranoia, fear, mental breakdowns). Then there is the fact that people could basically put each other in a prison (out of spite, revenge, anything)). Those are huge problems even if we would forget about the “who would watch the watchers” argument.
In reality i don’t think it would go that far, because there would be unrest and overthrown of the government, that’s why dictators usually have a class of citizens which they spoil with many benefits. And because basically none of that was present i could not relate to the population of 1984.
1984 is a warning how a totalitarian regime (regardless of its political views) can change the fundamentals of freedom itself by alternating history, the language and its propaganda to form a brainwashed society where free thinking is banned.
“The Sleeper has awakened!” ~Paul Atreides
H.G Wells’s book “The Sleeper Awakens”
“respect our troops” because they’re fighting for “our freedom”. When all they do is bomb countries with drones in the safety of their foreign Base…. fuck the US and their pathetic army
“All people are the same but some are autistic and those are different so we treat them differently by default…” Check, sir; autism is also Orwellian!
I will fight with my last breathe and die with no regrets. I refuse to be an ignorant slave that wants to sacrifice their individuality and human rights for “safety”.
I actually like Super-Truth and Übertruth 🙂
I recommend reading an incredible social analysis called “Amusing Ourselves to Death” by Neil Postman. It’s a very thorough exploration of how the television, light speed communication, and image-based media have resulted in a negative change in public discourse.
Essentially, one of the main points he makes is that a society’s primary medium of communication reflects that society’s values of certain elements of discourse, and that certain media are better at encouraging some values than others.
For example, typography (reading and writing) is inherently enriching, because reading is a thought-demanding task that requires you to critically think with every phrase. Image based media, on the other hand (like the television) encourages dependence on the most primitive, reactive response of the human brain.
I once wrote a research paper on the subject, using the following analogy: I put a picture of a rose in front of you, and I tell you to say the first 12 words that come to mind. You might say something along the lines of: “Flower, red, thorns, beautiful, Spring, plant, nature, stem, pettles, etc.”
On the other hand, I could give to you a written excerpt of the following 12 word quote by Leo Buscaglia: “A single rose can be my garden…a single friend, my world.” Which one required more critical thought? One could hardly continue to elaborate upon the base visual response to an image, while surely an essay could be written about that one quote! Anyway, Neil Postman’s analysis is amazing, and anyone who had the patience to read this should take a look!
Orwell’s fear was the control of our thoughts and a dumbed-down, obedient culture. In Fahrenheit 451, the author’s issue was censorship. In Brave New World, we discover what the world becomes when we are seduced and controlled by our pleasures. All of these books reveal just a small facet of what is wrong, because the reality is actually a smorgasbord of dystopic trends in politics, economics, and culture alike.
This really reminds me a lot of our current modern culture. As if it were a preparation or pre show of the main act of tyranny. I see it especially in the radical left now. So much double think and buzzwords. Bullshit such as “listen and believe”.
It’s tyranny in the guise of social progress, without actually helping anyone with any real issues. It’s all faux liberalism. I know that sounds really conspiratorial and paranoid, but to me it’s too easy to see the parallels being drawn between the radical left and the tactics they use to this. I’m not a conservative (in fact most political tests put me on libertarian left), and I like to point out how modern radical left people are just like the conservatives who tried to pull the same shit. Just replace “communist” with ” misogynist/MRA”.
It’s a cheap tactic to dismiss what you saying based on who or what you are and not there merit of your argument. And all of the “these words are problematic” BS.
you’re right, you do sound like a paranoid conspiracy theorist. The slow shift in public opinion on matters of inequality and tolerance doesn’t suddenly mean you’re going to be thrown into a joy camp for talking like an old man who’s embarrassing his grand-kids.
This is basically the entire point behind this video-slash-TED talk. It’s a subtle but decisive slam against factions of people who push a breed of totalitarianism disguised as progress of some flavor or other, or, as in the case of the most current blatant example: Outrage culture and censorship, protected through method of shutting down conversation with the adherent catch-all words like sexist / racist / etc. Now I know how the conservatives feel to have the bulk of their population comprised of religious and/or militaristic nutbags. It’s embarrassing – worse, it’s destructive.
i always thought surveillance was one of the least important subjects in 1984, everything else is what matters, yet people always bring that thing up like Eric Cartman. And by the way, it was weird reading the comments, where everyone was like ”PC is orwellian”.
I hate it when people whines about the ”whitewashing” in Ghost in the Shell and things like that, but i think they are far from being orwellian.
Actually, it’s kinda ironic now that i think about it, but calling them orwellian isn’t something orwelian on itself? You can get called ”racist” or ”SJW” for the silliest things, and those words, or separating people in groups like that and calling them things like ”fascist” or ”orwellian” doesn’t solve any problem, it distractes us from the important things and ultimately, it’s only useful to place every person into one side or another in a discussion, and i think that’s the biggest problem nowadays: everything is black and white. I might be wrong, but i think a lot of people in the comments where missing the point.
The reason people say PC culture is “Orwellian” is because it’s concerned with controlling discourse through deceptive manipulation of speech. Words are redefined to obfuscate meaning or undermine someone’s point. For instance, the term “racist” is used as a VERY potent label by nearly anybody.
A common person will use it to mean “someone who irrationally hates someone on the basis of race”.
This is why the world holds social power. Someone engaging in PC culture/progressive politics/SJW rhetoric will use the word the exact same way. HOWEVER, when that word applies to them or a person or cause they support, they redefine it to mean “power + prejudice”, making them definitionally immune to the label This means they get the full power of the ORIGINAL definition when using it against other people to denigrate, insult, deride, muffle counter-opinions in discourse, or even fire them; but they are immune to that definition when it’s used against them (even if it’s fitting by the original definition). In my mind, that is VERY Orwellian.
And given that they have the reins of discourse at the moment, that makes this redefinition dangerous instead of annoying.
Orwell wrote about political dissidence and the persistence of collectivistic oligarchy, a form of rule that underlies all superficial government definitions, where the ignorance of the people to their methods is what kept their methods working, and thus keeping the people uneducated was a central part of keeping society afloat(part of 1984 is an analysis of previous and current civilizations and showing how certain forms of control have never changed despite pretense of democracy or benevolence etc). Monetary sanctions is a form of control where the government says “do as we say, or we will take away your economic freedom”, which isn’t actually orwellian, but uneducated people will throw it around as a buzzword for such things(in oceania there were in fact no laws whatsoever.
Control was accomplished through other means). Kafka wrote about society as a big pointless machine running to sustain its own bureaucracy, thus the “I had to wait in line” thing.
friendly fire and collateral damage = Legalised government murder.
However, words like Islamophobia and Homophobia are often used to shut down a conversation. When one person feels threatened or feels like another person’s views are different than his, he’ll throw out words like that, to distance himself from the person and turn off the conversation.
Honestly man, buzzwords and polarization can be products of new speak. Newspeak limits perception and nuanced critical thinking.
Polarization is straight up when people don’t think there is any nuance to a situation, it can only be one or the the other, and my pole is the right pole and my opponent’s pole is the wrong one.
Like a polarized topic is abortion, and the poles are the buzzwords “Pro-Life” and “Pro-Choice” Much like newspeak, the buzzwords take a series of complex questions about the morality of abortions and books them down to a binary choice.
I see. But the terrorism thing was a narrative very intentionally pushed by the government after 9/11. Only a few days after the attack the narrative was that every person the government dictated to be an enemy was a terrorist and that everyone who criticized that was a conspiracy theorist. This started being repeated en masse both in press releases and through the media.
Criticizing the government made you a conspiracy theorist, being a conspiracy theorist was dissidence, and dissidence was an act of support of terrorism(I think even the term “enemy of the state” was used unironically at one point) and therefore you were a traitor for criticizing the government.
Likewise all opposition of the US outside of the border was suddenly equivalent to terrorism.
You might know the word “Taliban” best from how Taliban is a terrorist group who are connected to 9/11 and therefore deserve to be killed, right? That’s the story the USA has been pushing at least.
The truth is that Taliban was actually just the Afghani government(the fundamentalist sharia enthusiasts similar to what you will find in saudi arabia or pakistan), and after the US first accused them of harboring Osama Bin Laden and then refused to provide any evidence that they did or even agree to speak to representatives for multiple years before starting sanctions(that essentially boiled down to cutting off trade routes leaving thousands of civilians to starve to death), they just invaded.
The Taliban, although a dubious bunch, had never done actual terrorism of any sort. Yet not only have we been told that they are a terrorist organization, but that our troops are in Afghanistan currently fighting the Taliban, which is also wrong.
The people who are fighting against western forces in Afghanistan currently are either jihadists from other countries(so people who fight against the occupation on principle, some of whom are terrorists), or Afghani civilians who are tired of the occupation(actual freedom fighters who try to end a system of oppression that to be fair has slowly killed the population and destroyed their country), while the actual Taliban was killed many many years ago. So the entire terrorism dichotomy has in that case provided so many layers of misinformation and confusion and propaganda that even after knowing the facts I can’t tell what the point of the war was in the first place. Bottom line is that the word “terrorism” itself has provided all the reason regular citizens needed to throw their money in to “support the troops” and not be “enemies of the state”, while nobody actually knew what the war was about or what any of the sides stood for.
And the situation appears very clearly to have been propaganda fueled in the first place. That’s why I think it’s an exceptionally good example of newspeak. But what do I know, I’m just a lunatic terrorist enemy of the state conspiracy theorist Goldstein communist traitor.
Political correctness culture. Which is mostly true, trying to ban words and censor journalism for the sake of political correctness is authoritarian. There’s a reason for our freedom of speech and freedom of expression in the US.
So, just like Newspeak reduced the English language to eliminate any words that could lead so subversion, PC culture seeks to eliminate words branded as ‘problematic’, essentially creating a new dialect. And just like new editions of Newspeak dictionaries were constantly being published in 1984, forcing the citizens to constantly re-purge their vocabulary to fit with the new acceptable standards of language, so PC culture is constantly expanding it’s list of ‘problematic’ words, forcing people to constantly re-purge their vocabulary to keep up with the new political correctness.
“Conservative aren’t ostracized” You’ve clearly haven’t been in a western university campus recently, where conservative speakers or those who touch sensitive topics get disinvited or sabotaged and where students ask for safe spaces watch?v=GO_X4DkwA_Q watch?v=w_vgu4ewxVc watch?v=Tsgc0k594Js Political correctness is self censorship, which can be as harmful as censorship itself.
Feminist with their “unconscious bias”(thought police), “micro aggression(lenguaje control with PC)”, leftist with their “safe spaces” “you are not allowed to disagree with us here”, social justice, BLM…not to mention the social justice tribunal in Canada (see J.Peterson speechs), the LGBTSADXSX+potato lobby to use goverment to force people do use a particular language and pronouns…the list goes on.
4:10 Everyone should read the book “The Tyranny of Cliches” by Jonah Goldberg. Yes he is conservative, so heaven forbid someone with a different view point enlighten your liberal brain, but his book speaks exactly about what this video is.
I didn’t see “spreading the wealth”, “micro-aggression” or “social justice”
This sounds like the foreword in amused to death, Orwell fearing the banning of books and Huxley fearing that nobody would want to read
North Korea = Authoritarian America = Orwellian
“Ethnic Cleansing” – Genocide “Enhanced interrogation” – Torture “Socialism” – Tax Funded “Mentally challenged” – Retarded “Foreign intervention” – War
Check out “Amusing Ourselves to Death” by Neil Postman. Part of the introduction [p.p. vii -viii] details why Huxley, not Orwell, is closer to the mark.
Coming from a huge fan whose read all his books, the language component of his distopia was one of countless others, so I really don’t agree with this attempt to tie the term solely to language manipulation.
Orwell isn’t warning us of a wolf, but warning us not to become sheep?
There is no totalitarian regime that is not Orwellian. Every dictatorship distorts language, history, meaning. Saying that there is such a thing as a authoritarian regime that is not necessarily Orwellian is a mistake that could be made only by someone who does not have a first hand experience with dictatorship.
Very deep and expresses my thoughts exactly. “Words have the ability to shape thought, language is the currency of politics.” I shall remember this quote.
This works the other way too. Take for example terrorist. The animal liberation front safe animals from labs, farms etc, but since they are technically a criminal origination you can call them terrorists and suddenly there is no argument anymore, they are just terrorists and terrorists are bad. Other words I’ve noticed this in are communist, misanthrope, skiver, extremist, anarchist, chav
“Scratchy voice” like Noah Tavlin’s will be inextricably linked to early 21st century dialect. Go back 20 years and listen to how both men and women talked. Nobody ever sounded like this before. I’m only aware of it now having lived abroad for 5 years.
How is the German Reich Right-wing? This is quite misleading as Nazi is an abbreviation of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei which in english means National Socialist German Worker’s Party. They also had very liberal policies such as pro abortion rights, gun restriction and countless others. Although not as extremist left leaning as the Soviet Union they were very much left wing.
Sorry but that is historically inaccurate and was originated by political ideologues, not historians. Please allow me to explain. The pronunciation of Nationalist in German is Nazionalisch which was abbreviated to Nazi. The word Socialist in the name does not mean the organization embraced anything we would call Socialism today (much less left wing socialism, more on that in a sec). Take the “Democratic Republic of Congo”, the ‘German Democratic Republic’ or the ‘Peoples’ Democratic Republic of (North) Korea’. Nothing democratic at all about those governments.
In fact, there was a separate German Socialist party (SPD) up until 1936 and they were the biggest opposition to the Nazi party with 96 members in the Reichstag. Hitler banned the party. Many went into exile where they advocated his overthrow. Within the Nazi party there was initially a slight left wing element known as the Strasserites who were eliminated (along with other party dissidents) in The Night Of The Long Knives. Hitler despised the left He believed that Germany could have won World War I if the Socialist Second International had not conspired with the Bolsheviks, Hope this helps you understand the truth.
This video reminds me of epuilibrium
“Alternative Facts”. How would have thought Kellyann Conway was a follower of George Orwell?
Wow, I used to believe that Terry Gilliam’s “Brazil” was Orwellian, and while it has plot and characters based on 1984 (Sam Lowry is Winston, Jill is Julia, Jack is O’Brien), it’s a movie that has a more kafkawesque message, the troubles the protagonist goes through in the film aren’t caused by the fact he’s in love, it’s because of all the fucking bureaucracy that gets in the way, it’s not really about thought control, language or authority (Sam’s boss is an idiot who constantly needs his help like a shitty student) I’d say John Carpenter’s “They Live” and “Equilibrium” are more Orwellian than “Brazil” now that I learned all this. Amazing video.
That moron Palin needs to watch this video.
2:30 Considering the video is about distortion of the meaning of words, I want to point out that “cognitive dissonance” is misused here, as is often the case. Cognitive dissonance, as the term itself obviously conveys, is a state of discomfort due to struggling with several ideas that contradict / compete with each other. There are strategies of the mind to resolve such (e.h. outright denial, thus avoiding the dissonance in the most blunt way); Those remove the cognitive dissonance.
3:09 Better: Realize that the borders between authoritarian regime and democracy are fluid. The alternative viewpoint is that maybe such actually only can occur in an authoritarian regime and that what we call a democracy has long ago become one and the democracy part is just wishful thinking; an illusion. After all, one system can turn into the other.
One does not just pop into existence out of nothing. BTW our language is also under assault regarding other logical capacities, which is dangerous because language shapes thought and thought shapes language. Saying stuff like “three times bigger” while meaning “three times as big” are the little but widespread feet in the door. Here language destroys capacity for understanding mathematical logic. (Even worse: “three times smaller”.) Also things like “steep learning curve”. Many people just aren’t interested in correctness, but then wonder why the world turns to shit. (Because people allow themselves to be deceived easily.)
The regressive left is definitely Orwellian. Political correctness, micro aggressions, trigger warnings, banned words on campuses. This is all thought policing crafted for the purpose of eliminating dissent or questioning the power at play. Dis-inviting and silencing conservative speakers is Orwellian. Taking away the second amendment, or the fourth can be considered authoritarian, but taking away first amendment rights is Orwellian because it is taking away freedom of expression and ideas.
basically, “alternative facts”
It’s doubleTHINK not doubleSPEAK
Operation Iraq’s Freedom anyone? War is piece Lol.
Ah, the author behind the concept of “memory holes”! And the concept of1984 reminds me a lot of “Brazil,” which sets an Orwellian society in the information age, and a daydreamer’s rebellion against it.
More relevant than ever these days where we experience “fake news” and “alternative facts”.
A contemporary example of the power of language can be seen in the word ‘advertising’, which was actually coined in the 1950s by Edward Bernays (Freud’s nephew), the father of consumer capitalism, to replace the word ‘propaganda’, thus eliminating the obviously negative association attached to ‘propaganda’. It’s rather ironic, therefore, that we tend to view ‘advertising’ as something good or neutral, and yet condemn any use of ‘propaganda’. They are the exact same thing.
I can’t take it when someone labels fascism as a “rightwing ideology.” It is not rightwing. It is leftwing and can be tied back to Marxist influence. Nazis were nationalist socialists and Italian fascism is thanks to Giovanni Gentile who was a fan of Karl Marx’s socialism.
No, wrong. It was not rightwing. It was very leftwing actually. This is exactly what I’m talking about – clueless buffoons who have no idea what they’re talking about. Authoritarianism is the antithesis to liberty which is what the right is all about. You can’t just throw it in with the right because they were a military power. Military has nothing to do with ideology. Communist regimes, which are the most left of leftwing ideologies, were also military powers. Rightwing = liberty, free markets, individualism Leftwing = equality, central planning, collectivism Nazis Germany was a socialist worker’s party that transcended into the Italian fascist realm of a nationalist fixed and controlled economy that relied on capitalism as a means to an end.
The government controlled the market in order to better the state’s goals such as their military endeavors. Hitler hated capitalism and communism equally though. He just understood in order to fund his conquest he needed German’s economy to fund it. He still nationalized plenty of businesses nonetheless.
The closest thing to fascism today is progressivism in which the state regulates the market and taxes production in order to fulfill the state’s plans. You even have candidates like Bernie Sanders who are mixing progressivism with their own brand of nationalism. (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/421369/bernie-sanders-national-socialism) Doesn’t matter. The left still eat this shit up all the same. “Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it.” Get lost +marianushn, you clueless sheepish clown.
Noah Tavlin missed the irony of his own video. He presents us with a modern interpretation that is very safe in liberal academic circles, totally ignoring how the setting for “1984” is a left-wing, socialist government. Modern leftists are Orwellian.
Fun Fact: “Eric Arthur Blair (25 June 1903 – 21 January 1950), who used the pen name George Orwell, was an English novelist, essayist, journalist, and critic. His work is marked by lucid prose, awareness of social injustice, opposition to totalitarianism, and outspoken support of democratic socialism.”
lovecraftian animations to describe orwellian notions. Perfect!
Have you read 1984? Ingsoc manipulates language to the point that they have a full monopoly on the way reality is communicated. This means conditioning the populace to forget their preconceived notions of what is true by numbing language with oxymorons and inventing blatantly contradictory history – “ignorance is strength,” “black is white,” “we are at war with Eurasia and have always been at war with Eurasia” – so that what is “true” is always in the interests of the state. It’s the politicized reconstruction of how events actually transpired, not the cultural mindset regarding individuals in society.
In 1984, it’s willingly believing the impossiblilities peddled by the state so that you aren’t dragged away to be tortured back into submission by the ministry of Love. In modern America, it’s a group of assholes who confuse the issue with blanket terms. Different shit.
Social Justice is one of the premiere examples of Owellian Doublethink. Justice is inherently blind. The concept is that when deciding a case, the just verdict doesn’t concern itself with who the actors are, merely the situation and events.
A poor man can rob a rich man, and as long as the facts of the case prove this, then the fact that one is rich and one is poor makes no difference.
The blindness of justice is critical to the concept of justice.
Social Justice is about – in the most generous sense – considering the original states of the actors. In social justice you must attempt to weigh who they are with the actions that take place. In this case, the fact that the poor man is poor must be weighed against how rich the man he robbed was. His poverty is a consideration in what is right, and therefore his penalty may be lessened as a result.
This means you are adding sight to justice, as to be socially just you MUST consider the nature of the actors prior to whatever the incident may be. This utterly destroys the original concept of justice. In general, any time someone adds an adjective to a moral or ethical value word, be VERY wary. There’s an agenda. Look at the “People’s Republic” of China, in which the republic part of that phrasing is highly dubious, but justified by the (in this case) adjective use of “People’s” which can mean anything, really.
Social Justice is one of the premiere examples of Owellian Doublethink. Justice is inherently blind. The concept is that when deciding a case, the just verdict doesn’t concern itself with who the actors are, merely the situation and events. A poor man can rob a rich man, and as long as the facts of the case prove this, then the fact that one is rich and one is poor makes no difference. The blindness of justice is critical to the concept of justice. Social Justice is about – in the most generous sense – considering the original states of the actors.
In social justice you must attempt to weigh who they are with the actions that take place.
In this case, the fact that the poor man is poor must be weighed against how rich the man he robbed was. His poverty is a consideration in what is right, and therefore his penalty may be lessened as a result.
This means you are adding sight to justice, as to be socially just you MUST consider the nature of the actors prior to whatever the incident may be. This utterly destroys the original concept of justice. In general, any time someone adds an adjective to a moral or ethical value word, be VERY wary. There’s an agenda.
Look at the “People’s Republic” of China, in which the republic part of that phrasing is highly dubious, but justified by the (in this case) adjective use of “People’s” which can mean anything, really.
I´m opposed to trojan horse ideologies yes