A key to grasping what’s wrong with modern social justice theory can be seen in how it treats unquestionably small/vulnerable/oppressed groups that are economically successful.

It’s essential that SJ hide that even brutal oppression doesn’t automatically imply economic failure.

I almost never hear about concern for Ahmadis, overseas Chinese, Sikhs, Jews, Parsis, Sindhis, African Gujaratis, Ismailis, Armenians.

Why is that?? Well it seems to be because Social Justice(tm) is *not* primarily about oppression and vulnerability. It’s about redistribution.

The entire movement is about a false implication that group failure to fully participate economically can always be tied causally to oppression. And the vulnerable rich minorities? They threaten this syllogism by proving it isn’t true. Hence SJ is forced to ignore or attack them.

There is no question that oppression *can* and *does* at times have grave negative economic consequences. But it isn’t a slam dunk in every case. You have to work case by case to see which parts of under-performance are oppression based and which parts are tied to group behavior.

This is why SocJustice is more of a mutant cult than a traditional progressive movement. It’s generally not about oppression. It’s most often about *using* oppression for a *subset* of the historically oppressed to get economic redistribution...often from other precarious groups.

The SJ claim that underperforming pro rata population share is sufficient to prove oppression is only true if oppression/exclusion are the only reasons for inequality of outcome. Ahmadis, Jews, Sikhs, Sindhis, OSC, etc show that this is not true. Hence the bizarre SJ behavior.