Double Standards II

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Go back and read yesterday’s piece to get caught up for this one.

Does an accident of birth give me the right to do something and deny you that same right?

[snort!]

A lot of people argue yes for this. While I have said it before, it’s still not a valid argument. Consider the word “nigger.” Why can some people use this word and others can’t?

Saying an accident of birth gives you the right to use it and not me is a cop out of the highest order. You are hiding behind a lie, compounding that falsehood and continuing to perpetrate your disingenuous ways.

Speaking of prejudice, Tom Clark author of the mind-engaging Blatherspot offered this: “Since I have been told point-blank by members of a particular minority group that it is impossible for them to be prejudiced because they are of said group, I must pose a counter-question, to wit: Why is it okay for some groups to be either A) ignorant or, B) obstinate, or C) disingenuous? The particular minority in question, by the way, enjoys an enormous number of perks not available to the rest of the US population, and so feels itself to be privileged. Given the aforementioned perks, it actually is, de-facto, a privileged class.”

Nuf said on that specific.

Taking a slightly different track, does an accident of geography give you the right to do something and deny me that same right?

Coming RIGHT NOW to a Washington DC

Well, in this political reality of this world, the answer has to be yes. Here in the United States I have a freedom of speech that is probably the most unrestricted in the world. My Aussie chums in the newspaper bidden tell me stuff printed here would land the editor, reporter and publisher in court in a hurry and they would lose in Down Under.

So, let’s set aside artificial boundaries created by artificial political divisions.

Why can you do something and it is acceptable and when I do it, it is not acceptable?

You are looking for another for instance. I’ll give you one from  the history of my community which shows parity.

We had a superior court judge some years ago who would hand down a Contempt of Court fine to anyone who showed up for court late.

The judge showed up for court late one day. He looked around and decided to be fair. He found himself in contempt of court and fined himself.

That is parity. The judge realized he had a standard to uphold and he upheld it.

Most judges I know would not do this.

So why is it OK for a judge to be late to court and not OK for those petitioning the court to be late? Doesn’t the law apply to all?

Just another example to chew on.

Move out of the courts and law. Put this on a more even ground than we’re already on.

I give you another example, semi-hypothetical. Two students Phread and Ghorge. Phread has a 3.8 GPA. Ghorge has a 3.5 GPA. In all other respects except one, they are identical.

They both apply to a college and Ghorge gets accepted while Phread is rejected.

Remember, there is only one other difference in the two. Assume you don’t know this difference and had to weigh their college applications which are as close to identical as two applications could reasonably get. Who would you accept into college?

MLK said it

That other difference is known to the college admissions people.

Ghorge gets in. Phread doesn’t.

Yeah, that’s a pretty easy on. Affirmative action admission policies. One of the two is a “minority.” Which one is the minority?

Hint: It’s not Ghorge.

Threw you there didn’t I?

More tomorrow.