Not entirely, because I'm speaking very broadly. You could probably name one of orthodoxies as the one colloquially known as social justice. It's the worldview that has gained significant traction over the course of the last five years.
The other one is harder to define because it's essentially not the social justice worldview.
In America, you tend to find the social justice worldview in urban and coastal areas, and you tend to find the latter in rural, interior locations.
Obviously this generalization breaks down in many ways, so [insert all the caveats].
My main beef with this is that even the philosophical father of social justice, John Rawls, would not recognize the means by which this movement is trying to achieve its ends as any form of justice and in any way aligned with his original position and veil of ignorance thought experiment.
The movement as currently practiced is one grand perversion with all the hallmarks of other populist illiberal (but believe they are liberal) movements that resulted in indisputable injustice.
Yep, definitely. It's why it's colloquial. In my view, the usage of that term today carries the same descriptive weight as terms like "free market". It's more evocative than literal.
The other one is harder to define because it's essentially not the social justice worldview.
In America, you tend to find the social justice worldview in urban and coastal areas, and you tend to find the latter in rural, interior locations.
Obviously this generalization breaks down in many ways, so [insert all the caveats].