MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Are double standards in and of themselve...

Are double standards in and of themselves necessarily a BAD thing?

posted 7 years ago by TheMan18 (12692)
66 replies | jump to latest

Hi everyone, not meaning to make it necessarily controversial and I hope we can all try and avoid anything even remotely resembling internet flame wars and whatnot, but in your opinion, are double standards, on, well, ANYTHING really, not "just" with regards to certain legal AND moral issues, sexuality, religion, political correctness, politics and whatnot etc, necessarily a BAD thing and does it REALLY bother some of you, and if yes or not - SHOULD it, that they EXIST in the first place, or do you think that to some extent, besides it being NATURAL, there is some value AND good in them?

I mean, I often hear people COMPLAIN about double standards this and double standards that, but in the messages, I sometimes fail to grasp the underlining meaning and even what those people REALLY want there - are they saying double standards should NOT exist and that, to give a harsh example, we MUST treat say men and women the SAME for certain deeds (never mind the fact that in certain circumstances men are far more likely to OFFICIALLY be the victims in certain deeds at the hands of other MEN or talks about women's LOOKS and whatnot, then again, in "Harold and Maude" (1971) film for instance, though harsh to many people, we were supposed to understand and accept the young man falling for an officially old granny and respect it and many DID, not to speak of... OK, you get the picture) or rather say, hey, though MOST ARE, NOT ALL MEN are BAD, though what's very weird, and maybe unsurprising, is that many men who SELFISHLY defend themselves in those deed even defend BAD men, giving the impression that destructive selfishness NATURALLY exists in well MANY MEN'S BLOOD AND DNA AND NATURE, but women, especially feminists, are far more sensitive and delicate at least in theory on those fronts.

What about also the fact that say even in TRADITIONAL circumstances, some people who do bad deeds are either punished or pardoned and rehabilitated while others are still a threat and many believe they should be hated and killed, is that a double standard there, and is that a good or a bad thing? Plus in wars there are double standards when some sides switch and join other forces and whatnot, or the fact that in WW2, Nazi Germans weren't the only ones that killed and committed atrocities on a mass scale?

And where WOULD we, as in humanity, even BE if double standard didn't exist like in the first place? Thanks!

[–] Popcorn Kernel (2368) 7 years ago

Didn't we go down this exact rabbit hole a month or 2 ago?
I had to check the time stamp on this thread because it's almost identical to one you posted a while back.

In general double standards are bad. In more specific circumstances the goal is FAIR and proportional standards.
For example, in boxing you have weight categories. If you let the flyweights fight against the heavyweights then usually, even a really crappy heavyweight would beat a very good flyweight.
By having different groups it makes things more fair so each one is competing against someone closer to their size.
In a similar vein, a child that commits a crime has a different set of punishments from an adult that commits the same crime. One could say that is a double standard, but more accurately it is a proportional standard.
A mentally or physically disabled person sometimes is given more leeway or more help in certain circumstances. They get better parking spots , for example. This is not to make their life easier or better than an able bodied person, it is intended to equalize their situation. They started out with a disadvantage, so accomodations are intended to level the playing field.

And your plan to kill everyone that you consider undesirable (or to have cops kill them for you) is still bad. It's a bad idea. It will be a bad idea when you post this next month. Mass murder is not a solution to violence.

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Men in general fart more, because men in general eat more, but it doesn't have to be this way! C'est la vie!

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

well said lol

[–] R_Kane (15828) 7 years ago

A prior, and prima faci, yes.

I know that you don't know the meaning of a priori or prima faci. Your question is a waste of an educated person's time.

[–] Popcorn Kernel (2368) 7 years ago

You think I don't know the meaning of those terms? Or were you talking to the OP?

[–] R_Kane (15828) 7 years ago

Sorry, Popcorn, I thought it was clear that it was for the OP.

[–] Popcorn Kernel (2368) 7 years ago

I thought so but just double checking. I got the notification so you never know.
gotta go get my pie out of the oven!

[–] R_Kane (15828) 7 years ago

Is that what the kids are calling it these days?!

[–] TheMan18 (12692) 7 years ago

Why the hostile attitude all of a sudden R Kane?

[–] TheMan18 (12692) 7 years ago

Well, I am not ACTUALLY planning on carrying out those "justice-oriented" mass killings, just wondering what would've happened IF the idea was to be considered, that's all.

[–] Popcorn Kernel (2368) 7 years ago

Things would end up worse than before. That's what would happen.

[–] brux (14666) 7 years ago

There are no standards, there are no double standards,
there is just rules of thumb that cover previous situations
as best as possible. When something comes along that
doesn't classify well and people argue about it, it's a
double standard.

For example, let's say in the last election instead of
Bernie Sanders on the Democratic side it was Al Franken,
and this Tweeden story broke at the same time as
the Republican real scandals did. I would still support
Franken even if he was guilty, because there is no way
to change, and Trump would still be as bad. That is a
double standard, but what it really is a pragmatic decision
that the benefits of having a common sense Progressive
in the White House would still be better than Donald
Trump.

[–] Stratego (29536) 7 years ago

The Tweeden story is also a real scandal. Clearly you're a total hypocrite.

[–] Popcorn Kernel (2368) 7 years ago

This is a very thoughtful post.
In the recent situation with Roy Moore, some Alabama voters have said they don't believe the accusations so they would still vote for him. We are not going to be discussing those people right now. But some have actually said they DO believe it and they are STILL voting for him. So that got me thinking. If they think a child molester (remember this is the groups that does believe the accusations, so for the purposes of this "what if" post, let's assume he is guilty) is still better than a democrat, How could I understand that position? And I tried to think, under what circumstances would I vote for someone who I really believed was a child molester. And they would have to be very extreme circumstances , because most people agree that child molesting is one of the worst things a person can do. But you'd have to also believe the other option was even worse. You might be faced with a terrible dilemma (even if your beliefs might be inaccurate, either about Moore's guilt or about the other candidate). So in your mind you are choosing the lesser of two evils. And just not voting doesn't get you off the moral hook either because by not voting, you are also affecting the outcome. It's a hard position to be in, where no matter what you do, the outcome will be bad ( bad in your own mind, not necessarily in the real world).

I don't think your hypothetical case with Franken is as tough of a choice because there's a wide spectrum of sexual abuse, and they are at different points in the spectrum (i.e. not equal) , but it is still a good thought experiment to imagine a dilemma in which you would feel forced to vote for someone you believed was guilty of something terrible.

I know this is just going to make a bunch of people say things like ' but he denies it" or 'the yearbook was forged" or other details. Read my post again please before doing this. I am not debating who did what. (cont)

[–] Popcorn Kernel (2368) 7 years ago

continued-
I am trying to imagine a hypothetical situation in which the tables were turned and 2 factors were true IN MY MIND:
A. I believed the accusations against 'my' parties candidate
and
B. I still believed the other guy (or woman) from the other party was worse.
and
C. It was too late to choose another candidate for 'my' party and it was too late to mount a serious write in campaign that would not just split the vote and hand it to the 'other party'.

[–] brux (14666) 7 years ago

An example of that is Hillary Clinton. I have read about Hillary and Bill Clinton, and not in the nutty books, in well documented books such as Thomas Frank's Listen Liberal, and others about how the Clintons turned the Democratic party into Republican Lite and followed a corporate agenda. To me this is bad. Both sides are deceitful, but, Trump, was much worse.

One other thing, even 14 is not a child. The terms pedophile and child molester are not really applicable to Roy Moore. Maybe serial statutory rapist and sexual abuser might be correct. Pedophilia specifically means children, as in a child below the age of puberty. The realities of asking a parent's permission is even creepier because it is almost like encouraging a family to prostitute their daughter.

[–] Popcorn Kernel (2368) 7 years ago

Yes, more accurately, Moore is a Hebephilie.
Hebephilia is a sexual interest in people that have gone through puberty but are still not legal adults. This word is not widely known though, so most people use 'pedophile' to cover all underage minors, although technically it really only covers pre-pubescent children.
There is a difference between a 4 year old and a 14 year old, but legally a 30 year old man should not be fucking either of them or grabbing their privates.

I suppose in cave man times when your lifespan was only 30 years, people did start breeding as soon as they were biologically able, so there would be nothing unseemly about attraction to a 14 year old. But the 70's was not that long ago and I was alive then and trust me, 14 year olds were jail bait and adults did not touch them unless you were also around that age and then it was pretty normal for let's say a 15 year old boy to date a 14 year old girl.

His story about asking the parents permission is almost admission that he was 'dating' minors. If you date an adult, you only need HER permission.

it's so true that the Clintons and the Dem party in whole has moved so far right that they are about where Republicans were in the 60s or 70s. Meanwhile republicans have also moved right from where they were, that there is really no mainstream party anymore that is liberal. That word is flung as an insult towards anyone who is left of the John Birch society, but today's dems really are not liberals anymore. They are centrists. On some social litmus test issues like gay marriage or reproductive choice, they can masquerade as liberal, but on economic issues and even defense and foreign policy, they are corporate centrists.
I really wouldn't even call trump a republican, (not a traditional one, anyway). It was convenient for him to run as one and he can exploit certain republican platforms, but he's not a true conservative.
It seems like both parties are almost meaningless anymore,

[–] TheMan18 (12692) 7 years ago

Let me also guess, you don't necessarily think THOSE individuals should be KILLED either along similar lines that I was potentially suggesting, horrible and wrong as they STILL are, right?

[–] Popcorn Kernel (2368) 7 years ago

Killing people does not solve problems in 99% of situations. The problems in our country and in the world are way deeper than just individual people's crimes (or mistakes or weaknesses or moral failings.) They are systemic.
I'm not going to say all killing is equally bad- If your life is immediately in legit danger at that moment, and there is no other way to survive, then killing can be defensible but just appointing yourself the judge of who lives and who dies will NEVER end well. And you are proposing MASS murder, not just single instances of self defense or even executions after trials. What you want is much worse than any of those other types of killing.
In someone else's judgement, you might be the undesirable type who should just be killed. That's how arbitrary your judgement is.

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 7 years ago

There have to be certain double standards because, despite what the PC Police preach, men and women are DIFFERENT!
There should, of course, be no double standards when dealing with the law and the legal system.

Happy Thanksgiving!

😎

[–] TheMan18 (12692) 7 years ago

By the way Popcorn Kernel, you seem to REALLY know a LOT of stuff AND have the real, proper ability to talk about it, may I ask, do you have higher education, degree, anything, a well paid job, is your IQ (Intelligence Quotient) above 120, are you a man in his 40s or older, do you have a family, life experience, have you also read a lot of books and whatnot etc?

I mean, you seem to REALLY know a lot and you even have a lot of answers to world's problems here and there - plus I see you have great CONFIDENCE levels to talk about confronting issues here and there?

May I ask, how DO you accomplish it so well?

Don't worry, I won't take the mick, I promise.

[–] TheMan18 (12692) 7 years ago

And I see your English is very good as well, but let me guess, you're a native American, right Popcorn?

I, for one, was actually born in Russia (make of that what you will) but I moved to United Kingdom when I was 6 (before the October Constitutional Crisis events in 1993 that year) and lived most of my life with parents here in UK as well.

Also, what work do you do? And what's your level of say emotional engagement, as in, do you mostly react calmly to stuff or are you often angry or?

Plus, how do you know so much about modern POLITICS as well?

[–] TheMan18 (12692) 7 years ago

I also hope everything's for (my) past moments (PLEASE DON'T go into "details" HERE besides NOW is NOT the place for it) is forgiven and can be let go off, NOT that I disagree with those moments and besides, I am more than sure EVERYONE has at least OCCASIONALLY thought about it here and there from those perspectives, regardless of how bad in REALITY it really all is beyond it all happening, and you can possibly apply it to OTHER forms of violence and injustice as well, which, unfortunately indeed, the world is simply FULL of, no doubt about it.

Interestingly enough, I don't know if double standards can apply on subjects of human INTELLIGENCE but I often notice that a man in his 40s will often talk about and look at stuff DIFFERENTLY than a young man in his 20s would and I believe it is all natural, and I am mostly talking about normal, good men here who have no problems with being good people and little to no lack of abilities at being CLEVER, I am just saying the MENTALITY of the individuals can be at least slightly different, agree?

[–] Popcorn Kernel (2368) 7 years ago

Three is no such thing as "normal, good men here who have no problems with being good people "

All men and all women have problems in life. Different problems, of course, but there is no "normal" perfect person who never has struggles with trying to be "good", however you define that word!

[–] Popcorn Kernel (2368) 7 years ago

No. I don't have any answers, but I know a terrible idea when I see it. It's a lot easier to know what will definitely NOT work than to know what will work. The problems in the world are complicated. Most reasonable people know that mass murder isn't going to solve anything. It doesn't take a genius to know that. (and I am not a genius)

I do think though, that the less someone knows about any subject, the simpler or easier they THINK it is. Then the more you learn, the more you realize you don't know.
Sorry for using 45 as an example i know you like him. But when he got in office and he said "Health care is complicated- who knew it was so complicated?"
Well, everyone knew. Anyone with sense knew. But he thought he could fix it in a week.
North Korea is complicated. The economy is complicated. Everything is connected and everything affects something else. You pull one straw out of the pile, and a section far away collapses. I don't have answers. I am scared of anyone who thinks they have simple answers to complicated problems.

[–] TheMan18 (12692) 7 years ago

What do you think about animals, as in, non-human animal species, and do you think they ever even contemplate morality in their own animal way in their own animal kingdom?

I mean, obviously they don't have Facebook and whatnot and they don't debate all those stuff like you and me do, but seriously, as much as animals may not hurt and kill each other as much as we do us and them, they don't seem so steeped in morality like we do, and is there MORE to it besides us having opposable thumbs and abstract thinking abilities?

[–] TheMan18 (12692) 7 years ago

I see your parents Porpcorn Kernel must have raised you really well too, and that, coupled with your American nativeness and you knowing from birth the English language, you seem to really stick out like a sore thumb of someone who in today's world of this site's existence REALLY knows it all, and I do mean it as a compliment.

And am I correct in assuming you are a man in his 40s? You must be about 45 years old, right?

[–] TheMan18 (12692) 7 years ago

On a far lesser note then, how come in FILMS for instance, when revenge killings for something truly terrible (from Death Wish to I Spit on Your Grave and plenty of others) happen, we are not only often supposed to cheer, but think that those acts are actually CORRECT SOLUTIONS to such problems and things being carried out, and that if more people in real life took vengeance in an analogical way, world would be a better place, and are those movies REALLY saying that, as in, is this how we, the civilized people, are supposed to feel?

I mean, I often see some and other films and in reviews I see various of other forms of complaints here and there, but most people are happy with those scenarios which kind of beg the question, why do they work so well in films and so badly in the real world, and is law correct to sometimes punish people for killing others that hurt them or destroy them badly via those and other similar deeds?

[–] Popcorn Kernel (2368) 7 years ago

Look up the word ' catharsis'.
I don't mean this as an insult, I just mean it straightforwardly because you said English is not your native language and I do not know the translation for it in Russian.
It's actually a greek word so maybe it's the same, but anyway.
The concept of catharsis has been a primary purpose of drama since ancient greece. Movies like you mentioned make use of this concept. The idea is that seeing extreme emotions enacted in a play (or movie), which we know is make-believe and no one is really dying, can get blow off steam, can release some tension and get that out of your system without needing to go out and do the thing in real life.
It's not meant to inspire you to go do it, or to think that real life problems can be wrapped up in 2 hours with a neat little bow.

Killing a rapist does not erase the crimes they committed. The damage was done and adding more violence on top of it isn't going to undo it. Killing a murderer won't bring back the person they murdered. Prevention is much more practical but less cinematic.

[–] Popcorn Kernel (2368) 7 years ago

I do not know it all. No one knows it all. The more you learn, the more you realize you don't know.

[–] TheMan18 (12692) 7 years ago

The word "catharsis" exists in Russian language perfectly as well, even if a lot of words that Americans especially use or terms they have are not as common or popular in Russian but are expressed differently, but that all makes sense, thanks, and I was generally actually thinking along the same lines albeit wondering if MAYBE there is something 'more' than "just that".

[–] Popcorn Kernel (2368) 7 years ago

I have another theory about those rape-revenge movies.
It's a kind of exploitation and pandering. It lets people watch a violent rape but then they tack on a revenge ending where the bad guys get killed, so that people can feel better about watching the first half. You couldn't get away with a movie that just showed the atrocities, it would be too much like snuff porn. But if you add a revenge storyline then you can justify the gratuitous violence.

[–] TheMan18 (12692) 7 years ago

Because people watch that scene to realize how horrible and horrifying the actual deed is, and watch the revenge in order to feel cathartic at the fact that the offenders in the end don't get away with it and that at least some form of justice is served, maybe the victim can at least feel better that such perpetrators would, for one, never bother them again. And do any FURTHER harm to them right up to murder.

Sure it doesn't "erase" the original deed and murdering in revenge doesn't bring back from the dead those innocents that were murdered, but couldn't revenge at least up the "feel better" factor?

Its a more extreme version basically of a "he hit me so I'll hit him back" situation.

[–] TheMan18 (12692) 7 years ago

Then again, obvious of course, but if no one commits any crimes, besides revenge issues, there would be no one to punish either and no one to hate "justifiably" as opposed to say, in a prejudiced way.

[–] TheMan18 (12692) 7 years ago

Besides, I only if ever watch such scenes to be disturbed and to be reassured of how horrible it is, NOT to "get off on it" in any way (and I, for one, couldn't do so even if I tried), besides the latter, whilst wrong of course, doesn't even make sense to me either, and also - I don't ENJOY violent murder scenes EITHER and find them often disturbing too, whether its the shower scene from "Psycho" (1960) (I still LOVE that film though) or war related slaughter scenes and whatnot, so to me, on that level alone, sexual violence in movies is not really different, even if, and I wasn't FULLY aware of it in my childhood or teens, it really IS a lot more of a sensitive issue and just generally a higher risk factor than other forms of violence and even killings that we see normally in tons of amounts in films here and there.

I wonder what this also says about, say, human nature in general, and why is it existing in that form, basically?

[–] TheMan18 (12692) 7 years ago

(My parents for one would never be able to discuss those issues with me with such precision and accuracy as some folks over here do with so well, but then again, we normally in family just don't talk about that kind of stuff in general.)

[–] TheMan18 (12692) 7 years ago

By the way Popcorn Kernel, given how you said so well BOTH sides of the argument, you can write a newspaper article on Meir Zarchi's "I Spit on Your Grave" (1978) movie analyzing and commenting on both the necessity of the rape scene being so incredibly long AND on the moral aspects of Camille Keaton's character exacting violent and brutal revenge on her perpetrators AND even whether or not, such retaliative acts of vengeance really ARE likely (or not for that matter) to reduce the "original criminal deed" and make the world a better place.

Given how you seem to have spoken about both sides of the argument so well, I wouldn't put it past you publishing that kind of article and maybe getting an award and good money for it.

Hell, you could even write a BOOK on related subjects and I wouldn't be one BIT surprised if it became a best seller.