Double standards

[Nexaduro]

Why won't this thread die?

 

Seany was right! I should never have posted after him.

[Assume Nothing]

You can't gauge my intent. I've stated before - correct usage of more complex terminology provides clarity in expressing thoughts. I realise that it fails sometimes, as I write posts too quickly thus damaging the legibility of my posts. I correct these mistakes when I reread what I've written, so what's the problem here? It's unnecessary criticism that serves little purpose beyond stroking your ego it seems.

 

I like how you've deliberately gone into a tangent to personally criticize my posts, though. Good job.

[champion]

[hide=hidetags because off-topic]I don't see how pointing out your misuse of overly complicated words helps my ego, but okay....

 

If anything, this is constructive, I've giving feedback on your posts that would improve them.[/hide]

[Assume Nothing]

There's a distinction between feedback and criticism. Feedback would include suggestions, which there's a lack of.

 

On a more related note; Is it a good idea to discuss religious double standards, or should it be saved in the 'Religion' thread? I can name quite a few on the top of my head.

[obfuscator]

Feedback: Using big words is fine when it accomplishes the end of making posts clear and concise. Your posts do not do that, and they never have.

 

Suggestion: Stop using big words. Post in the same manner you'd hold a conversation.

[Assume Nothing]

What defines a 'big word'? Is it defined by the character length, or the complexity? I think it's fine to use it sparsely for emphasis or vividness.

 

I'm sure there's at least one case where the use of complex terminology is beneficial in the way highlighted above. I don't see your point.

[champion]

What defines a 'big word'? Is it defined by the character length, or the complexity? I think it's fine to use it sparsely for emphasis or vividness.

 

I'm sure there's at least one case where the use of complex terminology is beneficial in the way highlighted above. I don't see your point.

His point is very, very clear, and you know that.

 

Using "big" words can be nice and helpful sometimes, but it's just a bit ridiculous when you fill your posts with them seemingly for the sake of using them.

[Nomrombom]

Come on Skeptic. I like you and your posting style, but you're being pedantic. There's nothing to be ashamed of or sorry for, but there's no need to deny that you tend to use "big" words and showcase your superior vocabulary (and it is superb).

[i_love_burritos]

I don't see the double standard there.

I can't comment on anything Al Sharpton says or else I'm a racist, but any liberal is allowed to say anything they want about Clarence Thomas, Allen West, or Herman Cain. Furthermore, if I say Obama is clean and articulate, I'm racist, but when Harry Reid says it, it's a complement.

 

I can go on and on for each example, but if you haven't realized it yet, you may never understand it, and I'm seriously late for that clan meeting. :rolleyes:

 

Are you trolling?

Nope.

 

When George W. Bush pronounces nuclear wrong, he's an idiot. When Barrack Obama pronounces Navy corpsmen wrong, everyone ignores it.

 

lol. the level of hypocrisy displayed is astounding.

 

dubya IS an idiot. hurry along for the klan meeting (Im joking here)

[Assume Nothing]

I'm checking through my older posts, and I do see that in some cases that my posts are riddled with overly complex terminology. However, the claim that it occurs in the 'majority of my posts' is simply dishonest and inaccurate.

 

On a more related note, I've been wondering for a while now: Why is it more socially acceptable for minorities to be racist? The social taboo of 'racism' doesn't seem to apply as much to a black man calling a white person 'white trash', or 'cracker'. On the contrary, a black man being called a '[racist term]', even as a joke, is considered highly offensive and derogatory.

[Nomrombom]

Probably due to existing (but internal) prejudice against minorities. It's almost like people think it's cute that they're being racist. Well that's what I've observed at least, though nobody would ever say that and thus I can't really know if it's true.

[Kimberly]

Why is it more socially acceptable for minorities to be racist?

 

Perception and power.

[Ginger_Warrior]

On a more related note, I've been wondering for a while now: Why is it more socially acceptable for minorities to be racist? The social taboo of 'racism' doesn't seem to apply as much to a black man calling a white person 'white trash', or 'cracker'. On the contrary, a black man being called a '[racist term]', even as a joke, is considered highly offensive and derogatory.

Does being "white trash" mean you or I face being prejudiced by a member of the racial majority in your day-to-day life? Prevent you from receiving as much pay on average? Lead to you being unemployed for longer periods of time?

 

It's double standards in the strictest sense, yes, but the implications of racism on white people and the implications of racism on black people are on two different levels, hence there being two standards.

[Assume Nothing]

On a more related note, I've been wondering for a while now: Why is it more socially acceptable for minorities to be racist? The social taboo of 'racism' doesn't seem to apply as much to a black man calling a white person 'white trash', or 'cracker'. On the contrary, a black man being called a '[racist term]', even as a joke, is considered highly offensive and derogatory.

Does being "white trash" mean you or I face being prejudiced by a member of the racial majority in your day-to-day life? Prevent you from receiving as much pay on average? Lead to you being unemployed for longer periods of time?

 

It's double standards in the strictest sense, yes, but the implications of racism on white people and the implications of racism on black people are on two different levels, hence there being two standards.

 

Fair point. On the most basic level, it's still a double standard. I guess it extends much farther than name-calling for racial prejudice against minorities like African-Americans and such.

[Guest jrhairychest]

On a more related note, I've been wondering for a while now: Why is it more socially acceptable for minorities to be racist? The social taboo of 'racism' doesn't seem to apply as much to a black man calling a white person 'white trash', or 'cracker'. On the contrary, a black man being called a '[racist term]', even as a joke, is considered highly offensive and derogatory.

Does being "white trash" mean you or I face being prejudiced by a member of the racial majority in your day-to-day life? Prevent you from receiving as much pay on average? Lead to you being unemployed for longer periods of time?

 

It's double standards in the strictest sense, yes, but the implications of racism on white people and the implications of racism on black people are on two different levels, hence there being two standards.

 

Fair point. On the most basic level, it's still a double standard. I guess it extends much farther than name-calling for racial prejudice against minorities like African-Americans and such.

 

Very true on all points gentlemen. However, for true equality, there should be no quarter in *ALL* aspects of racism. That goes for both sides.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Of course. I'm just saying that, of the two examples, I know which one is more harmful, and which one I'd want to be more proactive about stamping out.

[Guest jrhairychest]

Both are harmful, not just the one side. By all means challenge pay scales, employment etc. However not challenging the behaviour of one side as vigourously as you champion them legitimises their behaviour.

 

In my opinion, in terms of their behaviour, they're both as bad as each other.

[Orpheus]

And these double standards are why I hate the court system right now.

 

In short I'm currently fighting a rape accusation. My lawyer has advised me not to say anything in specific about the case, but knowing how the courts are, and how conservative the jury always is in general, I'm not feeling too excellent about my odds. Supposedly the only evidence they have is me walking into a bar with this girl. That's it. I was told in short that she looked like she was the only one who was drunk when we both entered that bar. My response:

 

 

Anyone who has been around drunks knows that not all drunks stumble about. For example, I'm the kind of drunk that isn't horribly phased by the stuff, but I tend to just become clingy, then fall asleep randomly. Just by virtue of the fact the accuser is a girl in this instance, my odds are automatically shot down to 1000:1 in favor of the opposing party. I've got enough evidence in my favor to avoid a guilty verdict in the entire matter, but it's still bullshit that crap like this can ruin my job opportunities.

 

I'm not going to even start with divorce courts, which are even worse about being in favor of the female. If there's a divorce, chances are, if you're a guy, expect to start wasting money on alimony payments you can't afford to pay, and let's not get into children either if you have those, because if you're a guy, say goodbye to them. The courts will invariably rule in favor of the woman in terms of custody 99.9% of the time.

 

Double standards are bullshit and they gotta go, period.