3 ms·

That isn't a double standard but a fundamental result of judgement of costs, values, and outcomes. Somebody who shoots an armed and dangerous spree shooter is l

That isn't a double standard but a fundamental result of judgement of costs, values, and outcomes. Somebody who shoots an armed and dangerous spree shooter is lauded as heroic while someone who shoots a kid thought they was shoplifting a one dollar drink is regarded as a psychopath with no regard for human life. Circumstances and outcomes vary, a form of 'neutrality' that ignores that fundamentally isn't a useful metric.

macspoofing 6y ago
>That isn't a double standard but a fundamental result of judgement of costs, values, and outcomes. What do you think the definition of a 'double standard' is? You know, applying a different standard to the same behaviour (protests). >Circumstances and outcomes vary, a form of 'neutrality' that ignores that fundamentally isn't a useful metric. Sure. And it's still a double-standard. You just associate the phrase 'double-standard' as a negative and you don't like to apply something negative to behaviour you approve of.
ls612 6y ago
But that’s not a good analogy. The right to protest is important precisely to protect unpopular (but still widespread enough to have many supporters) demonstrations.
- arrrg 6y ago
  It’s important to differentiate. If someone calls for protests to be illegal in one case and not the other then that’s a double standard and not such a great argument. (There are some subtle differences here, though: The situation a month ago was materially different – both in terms of the epidemiological picture as well as in terms of new scientific evidence about the relative dangers of being inside and outside – so it is possible for someone to argue for a difference on that basis, though I do acknowledge that’s a very shaky one.) What’s happening here, though is that people judge the content of the protests: The content of the protests against the restrictions was irrational trash, so engaging in them is irresponsible stupidity. That’s a value judgement and it is perfectly valid to arrive at different conclusions with such a value judgement.
zarathustreal 6y ago
>a fundamental result of judgement of costs, values, and outcomes Judge not that ye be not judged. >Circumstances and outcomes vary, a form of 'neutrality' that ignores that fundamentally isn't a useful metric Perhaps not useful to you and your cause.
grandridge 6y ago
It's the clearest most basic example of a double standard. For you to try and talk your way out of it proves it further.

macspoofing 6y ago

>That isn't a double standard but a fundamental result of judgement of costs, values, and outcomes. What do you think the definition of a 'double standard' is? You know, applying a different standard to the same behaviour (protests). >Circumstances and outcomes vary, a form of 'neutrality' that ignores that fundamentally isn't a useful metric. Sure. And it's still a double-standard. You just associate the phrase 'double-standard' as a negative and you don't like to apply something negative to behaviour you approve of.

ls612 6y ago

But that’s not a good analogy. The right to protest is important precisely to protect unpopular (but still widespread enough to have many supporters) demonstrations.

arrrg 6y ago
It’s important to differentiate. If someone calls for protests to be illegal in one case and not the other then that’s a double standard and not such a great argument. (There are some subtle differences here, though: The situation a month ago was materially different – both in terms of the epidemiological picture as well as in terms of new scientific evidence about the relative dangers of being inside and outside – so it is possible for someone to argue for a difference on that basis, though I do acknowledge that’s a very shaky one.) What’s happening here, though is that people judge the content of the protests: The content of the protests against the restrictions was irrational trash, so engaging in them is irresponsible stupidity. That’s a value judgement and it is perfectly valid to arrive at different conclusions with such a value judgement.

zarathustreal 6y ago

>a fundamental result of judgement of costs, values, and outcomes Judge not that ye be not judged. >Circumstances and outcomes vary, a form of 'neutrality' that ignores that fundamentally isn't a useful metric Perhaps not useful to you and your cause.

grandridge 6y ago

It's the clearest most basic example of a double standard. For you to try and talk your way out of it proves it further.