Well, I never used the word "fairness" here and I agree that's not a useful term for issues like police brutality, nor will life ever be perfectly "fair." From what I notice, however, "fairness" is a word the right likes to use to critique social justice movements (i.e. "life's never gonna be fair! get over it!!") but "fairness" is NOT a word used by actual people involved in any kind of social activism- terms like "justice" and stronger words are definitely preferred over "fairness". I've used "fairness" in the past here to refer to something like an unfair record contract that violates rules most people would agree are fair (i.e. paying an artist more than 0% of earnings). I think Grimes' treatment by her label is disgusting and unfair and the unfairness of it demands to be known to all, but I don't know if it represents a wider injustice or it is just one unfair contract. If unfairness is institutionalized, it becomes a wider injustice. For example, if it was noticed that more women were given 0%, or more people born in March, or whatever- if it was a pattern of unfairness, that's even worse, and then I would use other words than "unfair" to refer to institutionalized murder and issues like that. So I never said anything about "fairness" and not sure why you have that in quotes.
As for "an ideal most of us wish was possible," I did say that and you are free to disagree, but I feel that, in an individualistic society (which includes most of the English speaking countries and others as well) all of us would like to imagine ourselves as independent of politics. Relationships are a good example because our whole culture is based on freedom in that area, that's the ultimate area very few people in modern progressive enjoy involving politics in, and rightly so. You can never politically tame sex for either the left or right, and people's romantic interests often contradict their own publicly stated politics. Ideally, this conflict would not exist, and we could all side with our romantic interests. In practice, sometimes politics makes that almost impossible. Is the solution to hate politics? Yes, but at the same time we must unfortunately engage with it to make it less shitty and hateful because otherwise we will be forced to bend to the whims of politics (because it controls us physically via the police and military force) even if we try to avoid it. And especially the historically disenfranchised members of society will be forced to become political and find their own power, or else give in to the powerful politics trying to destroy them. For example, the black person who has no interest in politics can still be shot because of political orders to the police department. The Latino with no interest in politics may still have their rights taken away if certain people become president. Only a very privileged person has the luxury of choosing to be completely apolitical. A middle class or poor person of any race cannot do that- a person of color or a sexual minority can't do that. Because we have to share certain public spaces and services and we need politics to make sure that our rights are respected. So to say oh, "I don't think 'fairness' can ever be really achieved," that's a kind of giving-up we are all tempted to do but only the most privileged person can actually withdraw themselves that way. And when you do that, you
Look, I'm not out campaigning for president of leading marches for some movement. I'm not even being a social activist online. I'm just pointing out that actively avoiding "social activism," while it's understandable (like not following the news- which I often avoid too) is not a morally legitimate stance unless you are a reactionary.