It calls itself 'social justice' mostly, but this is presumptuous because it ignores all the other ethical frameworks for creating a just society that exist & it also can't be opposed using its own terminology by anyone who cares about social justice which is nearly everyone. https://twitter.com/THEkenmeier/status/1390410225715486729

Calling your specific ideological & theoretical movement "Social Justice" is much like calling it "Pro-good things and anti-bad things." It doesn't say anything apart from that you assume your own ethical framework to be the right one which everybody does or they wouldn't hold it

It's much more honest to name your movement after its foundational principles like Marxism, liberalism, libertarianism or conservatism because then people can argue against those principles but still be understood to have an ethical framework that seeks a just society.

This is why Sensoy & DiAngelo's differentiation of 'Critical Social Justice" as an approach to social justice that draws on specific critical theories from the common aim for social justice is a positive development. It gives us an ideology to critique rather than social justice.

The same is true of the movement that calls itself "Black Lives Matter." To argue against that movement on its own terms would require disagreeing that the lives of black people matter which would make one a genocidal white supremacist or psychopath or both.

Instead, to argue against it, we have to spell out what its tenets & methods are & which of them we disagree with & why. Be very suspicious of any movement that names itself in a way that makes disagreement with it very difficult to achieve without looking like a psychopath.

Naming movements in this way serves two purposes.
1) Making them feel unable to criticise them.
2) Being able to say 'Here's the evidence we live in a society where people hate social justice & don't think black lives matter & our activism is essential' if they do criticise them

It's the Kafka trap approach that underlies the whole system. Either you agree with the tenets of the ideology & thus confirm them or you disagree with the tenets of the ideology and thus confirm them.