system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
I believe that the term "Social Justice" is intellectually dishonest CMV

Literally everyone everywhere who holds political views on any topic believes in "social justice," rendering is a meaningless term. If a conservative/liberal/libertarian/communist did not believe his or her political views to be "just," he or she would hold different views. Therefore, saying one believes in "social justice" is as trite and meaningless as saying that one supports "good governance" and/or opposes "evil." 

Of course, we all know what social justice really means. It's a buzzword used by the far left to describe their own views (ex. identity politics, wealth redistribution etc). My issue with this, is that it assumes without justification both that there is an objective standard of justice, and that the social views of the far left are objectively correct. This seems completely dishonest to me. Issues of ethics, morality and justice have been passionately debated for thousands of years without any sort of consensus being reached. Therefore, there is no rational basis to hijack the term "justice" to describe one's own views. Defining it in these terms without justification implies that your ideological opponents support injustice, bad governance, or evil, which is dishonest. CMV.

NOTE: THIS CMV IS NOT ABOUT DEBATING WHETHER OR NOT FAR-LEFT SOCIAL IDEOLOGY IS "GOOD" OR NOT. IT IS ABOUT THE USE OF THE TERM ITSELF.
gpt
Do you also get bothered when people use the generic term justice? Everyone tends to believe on that too despite, as you point out, not having a unified meaning. Adding "social" to justice just adds a connotation that we are talking about social mobility, bigotry and other social issues and the pursuit of equal treatment for everyone in society.  It doesn't mean we all agree what that would look like. It just distinguishes it from criminal justice. And while the term may be loaded and inexact it is bi less so than justice itself.