Double Standards

[Luminis]

Hi everyone,

Let me get something of my chest first: I'm somewhat reluctant to create this threat. I'd be cussed out of every major predominantly German platform for even mentioning this topic, but I'm assuming that GTP's going to be a little more level headed, given the international audience and all.

With that out of the way, something's been on my mind lately.

Two people have very recently lost their lives in an attempt to intervene in an act of violence. Both displayed great courage and compassion. Both attempted to protect others, disregarding what might happen to them. Facebook is flooded with posts about Person A. Person A is supposed to receive the federal Order of Merit. A football game was played to honour Person A. And there's a bridge that's supposedly going to be named after Person A.

The case of Person B has barely made it to the mass media.

Differences between both cases? Stuff that, in my eyes, shouldn't make a difference. Person A's a female with an migratory background, Person B a male without. What gets me is that even asking why Person B isn't getting anywhere near the attention Person A gets results in me getting considered either a sexist or a racist - or both (which is why I'm not discussing this more publicly). And I think that's a bit much. The most extreme reaction I've gotten was that Person A is a remarkable heroine and should be an example for all of us to follow; that very same person considered Person B to be an idiot for interfering in an armed robbery. I left it at that...

So, my question basically boils down to this: We're living in a day and age where ethnicity and gender shouldn't matter. But it still seems to do. Are we getting so scared of being considered sexist or racist that we end up discriminating against "the other group", so to speak? Similar things seem to be becoming a topic in the USA as well, from what little I've read.

What has me even more worried is that stuff like this is giving right wing parties something to abuse for their goals; that might seem far-fetched, but I do know some folks who are quite irritated by this whole ordeal, far more than myself - who's mainly just baffled.

 

[Dotini]

It's culture change. There's no getting around it, there's no going back, and it isn't easy. I know it could be worse, so I go with the flow.

 

[Carbonox]

I can relate to OP (except for the final paragraph, with the oh-so-mandatory far right party mention...) and feel that this is comparable to positive discrimination.

By the way, I think I know who you're referring to by the Person A. That thing made the news all the way over here. Though I must say, calling the cops would've been preferable to stepping between the arguing people...

It's culture change. There's no getting around it, there's no going back, and it isn't easy. I know it could be worse, so I go with the flow.

I don't. Things will only change for the worse if people don't fight against negative change right now.

 

[JMoney]

It's related to the violence problem in the U.S.- how America has similar laws but a much higher murder rate than Canada. It's all cultural. For example, the murder of a black person by a cop causes anger because more blacks distrust police than whites, and blacks feel a sense of brotherhood toward each other. Whites do not, and if I, being white, heard about a white person being killed by a cop, even if there was undisputable evidence the guy wasn't doing anything wrong, I wouldn't really care. I'll feel sorry for him and his family, but it doesn't make me angry. That's the difference between races, like it or not.

 

[Luminis]

I don't. Things will only change for the worse if people don't fight against negative change right now.

Question is, how do you "fight" something like that? The comment about the right-wing parties might have been uncalled for, but that's who you'd immediately be associated with for even considering the situation problematic. Maybe because they're the only ones to voice that opinion, though...

 

[LeMansAid]

It's important to recognise the differences between negative, positive, lack of negative, and lack of positive. This case is A) positive and B) lack of positive, not negative.

I remember that there's some story in The Bible about one person being paid for a job and being happy with their payment. Then another person came along, did the same job and received a greater payment. Person one was upset about the inequity, but didn't have the right to be, because in isolation they were happy with their pay. There's no negative in that.

People grab on to whatever they choose, and the media attempt to know what the people will choose. If it was a small dog trying to break up the fight the story may have received even more attention. If it was a three legged dog, much more agian.

 

[Joel]

It's hard to really say much without knowing the details. My first cursory google search leads me to believe that Person A is Tuğçe Albayrak, and I don't know for sure who Person B is. What I did find was that Dominik Brunner, a very much white person, was awarded the same award in 2009 for a very similar situation.

 

[Carbonox]

Question is, how do you "fight" something like that? The comment about the right-wing parties might have been uncalled for, but that's who you'd immediately be associated with for even considering the situation problematic. Maybe because they're the only ones to voice that opinion, though...

My way of fighting it involves, for example, getting rid of stupid overused labels like "far right" that are only used by the media to dismiss arguments of opponents for positive discrimination, that the people in charge don't like. (Not trying to sound like a prick here, just my take on this Europe-wide problem )

 

[TRGTspecialist]

We're living in a day and age where ethnicity and gender shouldn't.

It shouldn't, but it most definitely still does.

I'm confused why you describe the incidents so vaguely in your OP. I only know of thr A store and cant find the B one. Obviously that really helps your argument - because what's the difference between faceless blob A and faceless blob B, right - but that clearly isn't ever the case, people are different, circumstances are different, this gives context and that affects people's reactions to them.

 

[Luminis]

My way of fighting it involves, for example, getting rid of stupid overused labels like "far right" that are only used by the media to dismiss arguments of opponents for positive discrimination, that the people in charge don't like. (Not trying to sound like a prick here, just my take on this Europe-wide problem )

Eh, that's a bit of a tough nut right there. I mean, yeah, that label of "far right" might be used to silence people, I agree with that. It's an easy tool to get rid of opinions one doesn't like, but it works because there are enough people who are labelling themselves that way - and racism is very much a thing for them.

I'm confused why you describe the incidents so vaguely in your OP.

Mostly because I don't think it makes much of a difference. Case A: A woman of 22 tries to intervene when two girls are getting sexually harassed by two males, who, in turn, murder her. Case B, a 21 year old male tries to defend a cashier from an armed robber and gets shot as he tries to overwhelm him. I don't know whether these details make a huge difference to others, but to me, they really don't. My apologies I came across as intentionally holding details back to further a point.

 

[Imari]

Mostly because I don't think it makes much of a difference. Case A: A woman of 22 tries to intervene when two girls are getting sexually harassed by two males, who, in turn, murder her. Case B, a 21 year old male tries to defend a cashier from an armed robber and gets shot as he tries to overwhelm him. I don't know whether these details make a huge difference to others, but to me, they really don't. My apologies I came across as intentionally holding details back to further a point.

I can certainly see a difference between someone being murdered for intervening in name calling and wolf whistling and someone intervening in armed robbery. One wouldn't expect to be murdered in the first, and one might very well expect it in the second.

But without actually knowing about the incidents it's hard to say whether my off the cuff summary of the events is accurate. I can very well imagine a situation where the incidents could well be different enough for the different responses to be wholly justified, without reference to gender or race, but I don't know whether that imagined situation is accurate as to what actually happened.

 

[Luminis]

I can certainly see a difference between someone being murdered for intervening in name calling and wolf whistling and someone intervening in armed robbery. One wouldn't expect to be murdered in the first, and one might very well expect it in the second.

I actually didn't think about that, admittedly. While I might not see much of a difference there, others very well might...

 

[LeMansAid]

So in the end you stated the details that you think shouldn't matter, and left out the ones that you think should.

 

[Joel]

Yeah I have to agree, I think in Case A it's a pretty horrifyingly over the top response, while in Case B it wasn't really all that unexpected an outcome. Both cases were horrible, but I think it's reasonable to say that intervening in an armed robbery would be more risky than telling off some guys for cat calling. That still doesn't address the Dominik Brunner case. Have things really changed so much in 5 years since a mid 50's white, straight, and male CFO of a big corporation (which is basically as bad as it gets if we're supposing the liberal media has a "positive discrimination" agenda) in 2009 was given the same award as in Case A?

I don't think this is about race, gender, or ethnicity. Some cases get tons of media attention and some don't, this one has struck the heartstrings of the public, it doesn't mean there's a nefarious agenda at play.

My way of fighting it involves, for example, getting rid of stupid overused labels like "far right" that are only used by the media to dismiss arguments of opponents for positive discrimination, that the people in charge don't like. (Not trying to sound like a prick here, just my take on this Europe-wide problem )

Perhaps if you're concerned about labels being used to dismiss arguments you could reevaluate your use of the terms "the media", "multiculturalism", and "hate group".

It's culture change. There's no getting around it, there's no going back, and it isn't easy. I know it could be worse, so I go with the flow.

Care to elaborate? The implication here is that you would like to go back but have resigned yourself to the fact that it's too late. Curious what you'd like to go back on.

 

[Dotini]

Care to elaborate? The implication here is that you would like to go back but have resigned yourself to the fact that it's too late. Curious what you'd like to go back on.

I'm an incurable romantic. Quite frankly, I'd prefer to live in an age of chivalry, although I'm not saying it ever really existed on Earth.

 

[Luminis]

So in the end you stated the details that you think shouldn't matter, and left out the ones that you think should.

Not quite (at least not intentionally). I stated what details I perceived as relevant to, which, in hindsight, wasn't my brightest moment.

 

[Crispy]

Double standards definitely do exist.

Remember Ray Rice? He (rightly) got a lot of flak for beating his fiancee. Move to the other spectrum where Jay Z is getting beat and there isn't much of anything.

I see this a lot. Especially in domestic violence issues. If a women does it, most don't bat an eye. Lots of people just believe the man deserved it somehow. A women gets punched and it doesn't leave the air until the CIA releases torture files.

Yet there is nobody talking about the one big rule. Don't hit. Doesn't matter if you are man or women or dog, you don't hit people to solve problems. This never comes up in these discussions at all. Instead it devolves into being sexism or racism or whatever the next 'ism' we can talk about is.

At my school people love to make fun of "white girls". Since when does being white have anything to do with it? The term I always called them was "preps" or "preppies". I guarantee any other stereotype about another race would get you lambasted as a racist. Either we make fun of all stereotypes as jokes and understand the ridiculousness of the stereotypes themselves, or we don't use them at all. I much prefer the former.

Our culture is very keen to call racism or sexism anytime a race or gender is even hinted at. This is doing much, much more harm than good. First of all it is creating disparity between races. I have a friend who has slowly evolved into borderline "white rights" kind of person, all because of this political correct shift. People are quick to call racism anytime something happens to a minority, which devalues actual racial issues. The crying wolf of the political world? Regarding Miley Cyrus as a feminist icon in my opinion devalues women as a whole. Instead of teaching young girls to be equal with their male counterparts as a real feminist icon should, it promotes the idea that the only way a women can survive in this world is if she strips, grabs crotches, and dances on a pole. The whole feminist angle now has a negative connotation as a group of people who want to eat their cake and have it too. This is of course a small vocal minority.

I've personally begun to believe in the idea that equality swings on a pendulum. True equality doesn't seem to exist, as their is always one side who pushes it over the line. Double standards are annoying, but unfortunately they exist. What we can do is slow the pendulum down. We may not be able to fully stop it, but we can do our best.

 

[phillgt2002]

Uh.. I agree with some things you're saying, but you should slow down a tad bit.

At my school people love to make fun of "white girls". Since when does being white have anything to do with it? The term I always called them was "preps" or "preppies". I guarantee any other stereotype about another race would get you lambasted as a racist. Either we make fun of all stereotypes as jokes and understand the ridiculousness of the stereotypes themselves, or we don't use them at all. I much prefer the former.

Why call them anything? Why not just call them by their names? You kind of just flattened your own argument by stating that you call the white girls at your school "preppies" which is stereotyping; what if some of them are absolutely stupid? Also, now that I'm at it, what do you mean "I guarantee any other stereotype about another race would get you lambasted as racist."? I mean, I guess you're probably talking about black people. Don't be afraid to say 'black people'.

Listen, man. Don't matter what race you are.. if I were to go out and talk **** to a white person about how they're supposedly perfect and lack style, whatever the **** the stereotypes are, I'd probably be told off. If I were to go talk **** to black people about how we're all watermelon eating thugs, they'd probably set me straight too. What I'm trying to say is that skin color does not make you immune when it comes to stereotyping and racism.

I could sit here and complain about how I sometimes get called out as "that black guy over there", but I'm not going to do that. Skin color isn't a stereotype, though we use it to profile. Maybe they're just using my skin color to describe me? I have no clue what they mean by it, and most likely I 99.99% wont give a single **** about it. Truth is, stereotypes will never go away, though we have to find ways to ignore them.

Sure, you could say that there are some double standards, but honestly, a black person would probably take more offense if you were to call them a rent skipping, gang-banging thug. (Whatever the 🤬 people believe about us.) Mainly, I'd say that we'd take more offense because that's how we're seen in the media a major percentage of time..

I could go on forever on this ****, but I think diving into the thick of race when it comes to double standards is a whole different discussion and requires finer arguments.

Oh, and by the way, I'm not angry.
--------------

 

[Crispy]

@phillkillv2 Preppies was just a term we called them years and years ago. The reason being people being jealous over those people being more popular back then. Now a lot of it has to do with how much money they seem to have, which is where part of the white girl hate comes from I believe. I've matured since then, and really don't care. There are a-holes among them, ignorant people among them, smart people, funny people, and really nice people. Just like any other group.

I really feel like real issues are taken to the extreme and put in the spot light. I fear that in a few years the US will have a much bigger race issue than it does now, or has for a while.

 

[niky]

If a person assaults someone stronger and more capable and that someone doesn't complain or press charges (or even seem to be in fear for his life, from the looks of it), there's not much of a story there. But the story is still making the rounds on celebrity gossip sites, anyway.

If a person hits someone so hard they fall unconscious, that's potentially deadly assault, and it's more newsworthy. Especially if you drag the victim away from the scene of the crime instead of seeking medical help on the spot, because, you know, knocking a person unconscious can have... potentially deadly... consequences.

That said, I don't care much about celebrity gossip or the NFL, so I haven't really heard about either issue. If you hear more about Rice, that's because the fallout from his actions have more dire consequences, due to his employment in the NFL, and since it's sports news, it's more likely you'll hear about it.

As far as I can tell, Solange only works for herself, and she's not likely to sack herself for having a swing at her brother-in-law, so there's no employment fallout, and less of a story to report on.

 

[crue426]

That's the difference between races, like it or not

That's the difference between CULTURES, like it or not ?

trying to take 'race' out of the equation / not grammar police / or thread derailment ;-)

nice thread

 

[Johnnypenso]

Hi everyone,

Let me get something of my chest first: I'm somewhat reluctant to create this threat. I'd be cussed out of every major predominantly German platform for even mentioning this topic, but I'm assuming that GTP's going to be a little more level headed, given the international audience and all.

With that out of the way, something's been on my mind lately.

Two people have very recently lost their lives in an attempt to intervene in an act of violence. Both displayed great courage and compassion. Both attempted to protect others, disregarding what might happen to them. Facebook is flooded with posts about Person A. Person A is supposed to receive the federal Order of Merit. A football game was played to honour Person A. And there's a bridge that's supposedly going to be named after Person A.

The case of Person B has barely made it to the mass media.

Differences between both cases? Stuff that, in my eyes, shouldn't make a difference. Person A's a female with an migratory background, Person B a male without. What gets me is that even asking why Person B isn't getting anywhere near the attention Person A gets results in me getting considered either a sexist or a racist - or both (which is why I'm not discussing this more publicly). And I think that's a bit much. The most extreme reaction I've gotten was that Person A is a remarkable heroine and should be an example for all of us to follow; that very same person considered Person B to be an idiot for interfering in an armed robbery. I left it at that...

So, my question basically boils down to this: We're living in a day and age where ethnicity and gender shouldn't matter. But it still seems to do. Are we getting so scared of being considered sexist or racist that we end up discriminating against "the other group", so to speak? Similar things seem to be becoming a topic in the USA as well, from what little I've read.

What has me even more worried is that stuff like this is giving right wing parties something to abuse for their goals; that might seem far-fetched, but I do know some folks who are quite irritated by this whole ordeal, far more than myself - who's mainly just baffled.

Media is a business and the more viewers/readers/subscribers/hits one gets, the more money is made. Titillation sells. The more currently popular trends you can hit on a story the better. White guy jumps in to help out in a robbery and gets killed..that's 24 hours on Youtube and then resigned to the trash heap...nothing much there. Female immigrant jumps in to help another woman being harassed has so many more hooks to it, it's bound to be more popular. You've got the woman angle, the immigration angle, the sexual harrasment angle, the men are mysoginist pigs angle, the woman vs. man David vs. Goliath angle...all kinds of angles. You connect with people on many levels. Popular = money. Don't think of the media as some kind of altruistic force for justice and truth and reporting events as they happen and all that altruistic nonsense. It's a business, and when you look at how they do things in that light, it makes much more sense.

 

[ClydeYellow]

So, my question basically boils down to this: We're living in a day and age where ethnicity and gender shouldn't matter.

Ah, but they do.

And this is what is called benevolent sexism/racism. "Look, she's a woman/migrant, but she can act as heroically as any German man!". The implication is that A did something extraordinary that goes against her nature, while B just did his duty.

 

[ukfan758]

I've noticed that almost any double standard that involves race (for example as of recently, if the victims skin color is non-white but the shooter is white, it deserves media attention, however, if the victim is white and the shooter is non-white, the media doesn't give a damn) you can get called a race baiter for mentioning this. I'm not trying to offend anyone or be racist.

 

[Carlos]

I've noticed that almost any double standard that involves race (for example as of recently, if the victims skin color is non-white but the shooter is white, it deserves media attention, however, if the victim is white and the shooter is non-white, the media doesn't give a damn) you can get called a race baiter for mentioning this. I'm not trying to offend anyone or be racist.

Well to be honest with you I'm actually more surprised by a white man shooting a black person than the other way around..

 

[eran0004]

I don't think it's a case of double standards. I think it's a case of cultural norms and the nature of social media .

1. Most people are taught that one should never harm girls, while it's more accepted to harm boys because boys are expected to be able to defend themselves. A girl getting killed is thus a "better" story, because it's viewed as more tragic. More people may be more touched by that story and more likely to share it.

2. Shares generates shares. A story that's being shared a lot will be shared even more because it reaches out to more people. A story that isn't shared as much will have much harder to "break", because it has a much smaller audience. I've seen the first story in my facebook feed, but I haven't heard of the second story before. For me it's not a matter of choise between which story to share, because only one of the stories reached me and I can't share something that I've never heard of.

 

[Dotini]

http://www.ibtimes.com/je-suis-char...sts-highlight-double-standard-critics-1785188
The world is still reeling from the terrorist attacks that claimed 17 lives in Paris last week, and millions -- including world leaders locked arm in arm -- took to the streets of the French capital Sunday in a supposed show of solidarity. But uncritical support for #JeSuisCharlie, the meme that has circulated in social media and throughout the world in support of the Charlie Hebdo staffers murdered by French, al Qaeda-backed gunmen, is getting some serious pushback in the media and among academics.

Cries of hypocrisy and accusations of double standards are greeting both the examination of those world leaders’ records with respect to their treatment of journalists as well as news on Wednesday that France detained comedian Dieudonné M’Bala M’Bala for a Facebook comment he made in apparent solidarity with the Paris gunman Amedy Coulibaly. The post was deleted, but not before being seen by authorities. “[A]s far as I'm concerned, I'm feeling like Charlie Coulibaly," Dieudonné wrote.

Dieudonné is not alone. Fifty-four cases involving threats to carry out terrorist acts or statements in support of terrorism have been reopened by French police, the BBC reported on Thursday, and Justice Minister Christiane Taubira said hate speech has to be fought with the "utmost vigor," urging prosecutors to act quickly against those who condone terrorism or carry out racist or anti-Semitic acts. Prime Minister Manuel Valls added that freedom of speech should not be confused with anti-Semitism, racism and Holocaust denial.

 

[G.T.Ace]

Case B, a 21 year old male tries to defend a cashier from an armed robber and gets shot as he tries to overwhelm him.

I call these people usually idiots, but whatever.
Showing courage and defending two girls against a strong guy attacking them and grabbing after a gun in a robbery is a huge difference. Double standards do exist, but that's a really, really bad example.

 

[Carbonox]

Where's the huge difference? Both incidents involved extremely dangerous people. (Who, quite frankly, should always be dealt with by cops, because unfortunately, your average citizen generally doesn't come equipped with the skills or tools to defeat said people in a battle, and it'd be preferable if no civilians got themselves killed as martyrs.)

 

[G.T.Ace]

Where's the huge difference? Both incidents involved extremely dangerous people. (Who, quite frankly, should always be dealt with by cops, because unfortunately, your average citizen generally doesn't come equipped with the skills or tools to defeat said people in a battle, and it'd be preferable if no civilians got themselves killed as martyrs.)

Because the robber would most likely just back off after having the money (or whatever), while that guy in the other case was actively assaulting two young girls. You don't grab after firearms, ever. It could've made the situation even worse, with more hurt or dead people.