Josh Hoffman wrote:so·ci·e·ty
/səˈsīədē/
noun
1.
the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.
com·mu·ni·ty
/kəˈmyo͞onədē/
noun
1.
a group of people living in the same place or having a particular characteristic in common.
"People" refers to human beings collectively, including men, women, and children, often distinguished from other beings.
The first point I'm making above is that the definition of people matters too. Right at this moment, the above quote seems reasonable. But from any reasonable social justice perspective, 200 years ago it didn't meaningfully include women or people of color. The circle of agents that we value as our peers has been expanding over time for at least hundreds of years. Maybe in 200 more years we will, as a society, also value the preferences of less cognitively sophisticated animals as well. But that also points out that it might be worth considering how the other words change over time.
I think relying on the definition of
place provided is sort of foolish, since it appears to be an arbitrarily small point. If the place is much, much smaller than a single person, community and society don't exist at all. So it clearly can't really mean that. However, considering the scope of
place puts me in mind of the widening circle of "people" that I called out just above. Maybe place, too -- in the society/community sense, has been expanding as we see the world with a more nuanced lens (or at least as travel has become more accessible). When you read letters written during the Civil War, it's obvious that people take quite seriously their home counties. But today, the county seems like an almost embarrassingly backward artifact. No one cares what county you're from. (You may notice that I call out my county in the blurb about my location under my name. I'm "taking it back".)
So anyway, I think most social justice disputes comes down to different people including and excluding groups of
other folks.