“Social justice warriors” confuse the consequences of lack of responsibility (in other words, if you injure someone, you ought to know better than to do that, and the fault lies with you) with depictions of various things in the media (which they say have the unaccountable power to make people — mostly men — do bad things). Their narrative has, by diminishing the sense of individual responsibility on the part of generations of people, created worse acts than the media they’ve criticized for so long. We now have social responsibility without actual responsibility.
The cure for misconduct is to educate kids that certain acts are evil and they shouldn’t do them, then when people do commit evil acts, to punish them after due process of law, and be very specific they are being punished for hurting other people. We have a President and have had two successive Attorneys-General who are publicly saying that people are in jail, not for breaking the law, but for the color of their skin — which is where social justice leads, the corruption of actual justice by people who deny that humans should be held responsible for hurting other people -regardless of their skin color.
I recently had a great discussion with my grandson (who at the precocious age of fourteen is discovering a bent for history) about Aaron Burr, and how his conduct was bad not because he shot Alexander Hamilton in a fair duel (in which either man might have died), but because he was unable to live within his means (as a successful attorney and one-time vice-President of the United States of America, that took effort) and thus felt he had to overthrow the Spanish colony of Mexico in order to get money when all he had to do earn a living and live within those means.
The social justice analysis of Aaron Burr, on the other hand, has been over the years that he was evil (a) for killing the architect of the Federal banking system (who was himself an avid duellist — Hamilton lived by the duelling pistol and died by it), (b) wanted to live off the backs of a lot of Mexican campesinos (when for all we know, his rule as Emperor of Mexico and Texas might have improved their lot over what they endured under the Spanish), and (c) was an exploiter of women (none of whom had to be dragged to his bedroom by the early Federal equivalent of Arkansas state troopers — Burr’s luck with women in his early to middle age was owing to considerable charm, while in his old age, he tended to purchase his female company by the night — from willing ladies).
Aaron Burr did evil things, or at least tried very hard to do them for the usual reason criminals break the law — the lure of easy money. That he failed was the result of a comedy of errors, not least of which was that the commanding general of the United States Army was a traitor who took Spanish money to betray the United States, betrayed his Spanish masters when it became convenient so to do, and befriended Aaron Burr, conspired with him, then betrayed him as well. It was a case when relatively venial evil successfully opposed what might have been much more consequential evil that might have cost hundreds of lives in an unjust war.
The social justice ladies themselves expose their own hypocrisy by their awesome silence with regard to William Jefferson Clinton, who by all rights ought to have been burned in effigy by the National Organization for Women for being the ur-exploiter of women.
Instead, they lionize him and his cynically enabling wife, who — by the very standards of social justice theory — ought to be castigated for helping Bill Clinton escape the consequences of a life spent using his office to gratify his sexual urges while treating the women he used for that purpose much more disgracefully than did either Aaron Burr or the social justice league’s current historical darling, the also promiscuous Alexander Hamilton.