Social justice, a term often employed, but rarely defined by politicians in Washington, has become pervasive in modern culture, especially in the era or President Donald Trump.
So, what does it actually mean? According to the Center of Economic and Social Justice, social justice is understood to be, “The virtue which guides us in creating those organized human interactions we call institutions.”
Taking this term as ambiguous at best, and detrimental to human society at worst, social justice is inherently evil and contrary to everything it claims to represent.
In the most convoluted phrasing possible, social justice, in a nutshell, could be boiled down to giving each member of the community equal access to participate in the economic, political and social domains of American society. This sounds inherently good at its core. A more involved populace is welcomed, but social justice is guilty of an equivocation fallacy in its primary principles which cannot be ignored. 
Equality and justice are not interchangeable terms, and to treat them as if they are is an injustice in and of itself. Champions of social justice claim their work is creating a world of higher moral standing by working toward good things defined by the movement.
According to Social Justice Solutions, these good things are defined as “equal distribution of resources” and “removing inequality.” These good things outlined by Social Justice Solutions sound eerily familiar to the economic principles of socialism, so why not title it as such? The answer is obvious. Wearing the mask of social justice allows politicians to take the moral high ground over citizens, and to force their wildly unpopular agendas.
According to a 2016 Gallup poll, only 35 percent of Americans support the U.S. becoming a socialist-planned economy, but the numbers skyrocket if the term social justice is invoked. 
Social justice is a political club wielded to label one side as inherently moral, and the other inherently immoral. Of course, to ensure these good things are done, a great arbiter of what is right and wrong must be appointed. Defenders of social justice give this responsibility to the state, terrifyingly increasing the authority of government not only as the prime political entity, but also the head moral institution as well.
The state redistributing money from your pockets into the pockets of someone else would be considered compassionate, and you wishing to keep the money for you and your family would be greedy.
Does the willful taking of something to benefit another without their consent, and in order to prompt economic equality sound like justice?
When people steal, they are thrown in jail. One would consider this to be justice, but if the state steals from its citizens, it is somehow a good thing.
Social justice is a disingenuous phrase. It was coined by some politicians with the intention of confusing the American people into thinking they are somehow paragons of morality, while slandering those they disagree with as anti-justice. It is despicable how politicians believe simply using the phrase ‘social justice’ gives them a free pass to avoid explaining how their policy is good for the nation.
In all political reality, it is a brilliant strategy.
When bankrupt of marketable ideas, one can appeal to the hearts of its citizens, and it works with devastating effectiveness. It is imperative to call out this intellectual laziness, and politicians must be forced to prove a policy is moral rather than simply saying it is on their word alone. The power of moral superiority has always rested in the hands of the American people.
The implication is the vast majority of Americans are good people who want to do the best they can with what they have. Handing this power of moral authority to the government, where they have proven time and time again to be unworthy is an insult to the character of the American citizen.
So, with this, beware of what is done in the name of social justice, and judge for yourself how just it actually is.