Today, one of the local cinemas had a special on for Madagascar 3: £1 tickets. £1…can you believe it! Well, we went because the kids have been good (even though Lydia has been sick, she was feeling better). That, and we wanted to get out of the house. Anyway, I enjoyed myself and the kids sat through the entire thing! However, there was a scene (it happened twice) combined with my current reading made me start wondering about something. Is there a double-standard? Do some people think they are “special” and should have things others shouldn’t?
First off, I want to say that I don’t think that. Everyone should be able to work hard and able to get whatever they want. Want bodyguards? Make enough to pay for them and they are yours. Want a vacation home in the mountains? Make enough to buy it and you can have it. Want a gun? Go get one. Want an SUV? Go for it. Want to use a term? Go for it. Want a freedom? defend it when someone else uses it. Want a sword? Same thing.
I’ve blogged an example of this before: Swords or guns? The jist of that post was to point out how I thought the author had a double standard. How he thinks about swords is how I think about guns (it is a drop-in replacement). But, I expect he would think it ludicrous if someone were to talk about banning swords: after all, he seems to be fairly responsible about it. But guns? I imagine he would be right there calling for them to be banned.
Another example came from the film. There was a scene–two actually–where they talk about an “Afro Circus” with everyone wearing huge ‘fro wigs (some even with picks stuck in them). Here’s a link to one of them on YouTube: Afro Circus.
Yet another example comes from the book Game of Thrones, Fire and Ice. Last night, while reading it, I came across the word niggardly.
Now, in all three of these cases, I don’t really care. I don’t care that the first guy wants to have swords (and teach his kids about them). I don’t care that DreamWorks included the Afro Circus reference in their film. Nor do I care that the author of Game of Thrones used the word niggardly. Those are their rights and well within them. But….
Look at the outcry against guns at the moment in the US. I don’t know for sure; however, I expect the author of the BoingBoing post is all for regulation of them; however, I’m sure he would rant about his swords going away. Imagine if Ben Stien had used something like that in one of his anti-evolution videos. Imagine the outcry if Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity used the word niggardly to describe a cheap person?
Now, let me transition to something real: liberals tell me that I have to accept their positions and roll over and accept things like gay marriage or abortion. They tell me I have to be accommodating to them. I have to allow their positions to be taught in schools. If I don’t, I’m a homophobe racist horrible person. Yet they will not then turn around and accept my position that the earth was created in 6 literal 24 hour days apx 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. I’m ridiculed for holding that position. They will not accept me saying I think homosexuality is a sin–just like premarital sex or adultery–yet I am told I must accept their position. Why do they not allow Tom Sawyer and Huck Fin in some libraries yet not about the Game of Thrones book?
I think this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. They want total acceptance from me yet they refuse to grant the same in reverse. My question is: does the source matter? Do you think there is a double-standard?
[Update 2013-01-07 06:25:10] I have another much worse (or better?) example. Check out this blog post.
[Update 2013-02-02 19:26:06] Here’s yet another example: The Redbull Rampage. I just watched a video on Netflix where it showed these guys digging out “lines” for them to ride their bikes down and hacking bushes down. Do they just “know” better or “care more” than dirt bike riders, etc…? Stinkin liberals think they are special…..
Image from catheadsix via flickr