As BurkaChick, the usual witless, whiney liberal, it has come to my attention that some of you may question our meaning of the term “Social Justice”. We spend many lippy liberal lectures spouting the big “SJ”, but have as yet to shell out the progressive poopaganda to our actual definition.
“Social Justice” is a mantra we incessantly rant and chant – but when it comes to telling you what it means – we can’t. We name organizations, groups, institutions and even sign our letters using it. The big “SJ” to us is like leprechauns, unicorns and Willie Wonka all rolled up into one. We can’t actually prove it exists, but it’s what we all dream of in our La La Libland (after all, we do have a “Santa Claus” government). “Social Justice” is the answer to all our socialist sputter and we self-righteously cry out its name whenever we don’t have actual solutions. We define ourselves by it and praise other nations who embrace our chatter. Then we smirk as though we are the only ones who have compassion for the plight of man when we use it. The big “SJ” is our commie calling card.
But for all our liberal bravado of shouting to the world for “Social Justice”, there is a hush in humanity. For those in this world who cry out for real justice, our socialist shout is silent.
For the babies of Dr. Gosnell, there is silence.
For the women of the Taliban, there is silence.
For the Benghazi victims, there is silence.
For the chemical weapons used on civilians in Syria, there is silence.
Our “Social Justice” is as elitist as we progressives are. It chooses only those who we feel deserve it. It’s prejudiced and intolerant and we turn our backs on those who are the most in need of “hope and change”. We can’t reference where we have used it, since any example would show the total destruction and real consequences on the human condition with it.
In the end, we left elitists will always say that our big “SJ” looks out for the welfare of man (at least we have the “welfare” part right). It is our democrat dialogue finale (like the fat lady singing at the opera). The smug be-all and end-all to any legitimate argument. After all, how can any of us pompously-pointed progressives have an actual debate about a unicorn (unless of course it’s gay)?