Double standards

Every now and then, a progressive says something that’s true – according to progressive logic – but that he’s not supposed to say is true. The last example was Bryan Caplan saying the opposing any restriction on immigration was the same thing as supporting Jim Crow laws. The latest example is Stanley Fish.

Fish says that there’s no double standard in political debates with respect to sexism and racism and other isms. Progressives, like Fish, may occasionally say something that seems to be sexist or racist, but such statements are not sexist or racist because they’re made by a progressive.

Conservatives often twist themselves in knots to avoid saying anything that could be construed as racist. Similarly, they often get frustrated that blatantly racist statements from progressives don’t get the race lobbies upset. Conservatives don’t understand that racism and sexism are inherently political concepts. Per progressive standards, all statements made by conservatives are somewhat racist simply because the statements are made by conservatives. As Fish says:

If we think about the Rush Limbaugh dust-up from the non-liberal — that is, non-formal — perspective, the similarity between what he did and what Schultz and Maher did disappears. Schultz and Maher are the good guys; they are on the side of truth and justice. Limbaugh is the bad guy; he is on the side of every nefarious force that threatens our democracy. Why should he get an even break?

Indeed.

As long as conservatives play by these rules, they’ll always lose.

Advertisements

8 Responses to Double standards

  1. Columnist says:

    Conservatives play by these rules because they have a wrong understanding of Christianity. If you encounter double standards, reverse the double standards.

  2. Simon Grey says:

    “As long as conservatives play by these rules, they’ll always lose.”

    This is the pretty much the reason why I hate conservatives: they keep trying to pay by liberals’ rules. I’m not sure why this is the case, but part of me believes that it’s because conservatives believe the exact same things liberals believe (regarding equality, the role of government, etc.), except to a different degree, which is why I say there is no difference between conservatives and liberals. However, part of me also wonders if conservatives are just idiots who don’t understand that if the rules of the game are intended to make you lose, than the best thing to do is break the rules!

  3. Victor says:

    This is perhaps the clearest example of Who?Whom? moral relativism I have seen. I’m glad, at least, that Mr. Fish admits the double standard he practices. His candor distinguishes him from others of his ilk.

    It matters not how delicately conservatives may phrase an objection a particular policy or a phenomenon, progressives have such a stranglehold on public discourse that the Who?Whom? tactic will be rigorously used on conservatives.

    Bill Maher can continue attacking the Palin family with the slimiest slurs he can think of, and Rush Limbaugh will have to learn to take it.

  4. Handle says:

    The best part was his last paragraph, which should have been the first, and presented as a “disclaimer: abandon reason from this point forward”:

    I know the objections to what I have said here. It amounts to an apology for identity politics. It elevates tribal obligations over the universal obligations we owe to each other as citizens. It licenses differential and discriminatory treatment on the basis of contested points of view. It substitutes for the rule “don’t do it to them if you don’t want it done to you” the rule “be sure to do it to them first and more effectively.” It implies finally that might makes right. I can live with that.

    “I can live with that” = “pas d’ennemi a gauche” = nothing other than a strategy for feeding raw power lust. The Beta-Right “Conservatives” never seem to understand this – like they’ve forgotten what this is all really about.

    The Alpha-Right (is this a better term for our loose club? I like it, has a nice aggressive ring to it) does not need to be reminded that it cannot expect anything but constant, total, rule-less, ruthless warfare.

  5. Tschafer says:

    “It implies finally that might makes right. I can live with that”

    We’ll see, Stanley. We’ll see….

  6. Jehu says:

    Fish is serving my interests.
    I’ve been trying to convince conservatives that there IS NO MORAL HIGH GROUND on most political issues, and even where there might be a hill here or there, their opponents aren’t on it. Therefore I want to see them pursue most politics as a straightforward slugfest of self interest instead of simpering before the sanctimonious scolds who pretend to be universalists.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: