Is "Social Justice" Meaningless?

No.

   That's my take, anyway.

   You often hear people on the right say that it is. I think Hayek says it. I think Sowell may even say it. But I think they're wrong.

   The problem isn't that it's meaningless. The problem is that the left has co-opted the term and--as is their wont--have spun the meaning so that it presupposes that the left is always right. It's now just another piece of lefty cant. It's only slightly less overt than "politically correct." That phrase has fallen out of favor, and now the left--as is also their wont--claims there's no such thing. They don't merely repudiate the term, they relegate it to the realm of the nonexistent...along with Antifa and cancel culture. Oh, sorry. I meant: "Antifa" and "cancel culture"...what with neither being real, you see... Man, the tactical use of scare quotes bugs the hell out of me... 

   Anyway, whereas describing their own views as "politically correct" was so transparent that it was too easy to ridicule, identifying their own views as manifestations of "social justice" is a bit less overt. 

   To cut to the chase (though I've said it before), the problem with the term isn't that it's meaningless, it's that it's only used by the left, and the way its actually applied means that it actually means: socially just according to the progressive-left's conception thereof. Taking people's property and giving it to the less-well-off: social justice! Lowering taxes and "letting" people keep their own wealth: not social justice. Anti-hate-speech measures: social justice! Free speech: not social justice. And so on.

   So the problem isn't that the phrase is meaningless--it's that it's politically non-neutral. It carries a leftward valence. Thus it tends to gently skew every debate in favor of the progressive left. 

   My view of the matter, anyway, in brief.