What sounds like a double standard but isn't?

Not giving both sides of an argument your platform to opine on if one of the sides is plainly bigoted and/or anti-scientific
- "Joe Rogan presents both sides of the vaccine debate!"
  Joe Rogan may have brought two different opinions; he did not bring on a proportional number representing the actual consensus.
  Which would be like 99 vaccine scientists and infectious disease specialists for every loony.
- Not every argument has two sides. Some have five sides. Some have one side. Pigeonholing everything into a duality hampers our ability to understand nuance.
  But I guess it does make for better television.

If I get to my dentist on time, he makes me wait 20 min.
If I get to my dentist 10 min late he refuses to see me.
- I've experienced this myself, and it is a double standard.
  
  Yeah if the dentist makes you wait for 20 minutes, you definitely should have the right not to see him

Exclusive spaces for women and minorities while requiring male spaces to accept women and minorities. Like women or black only colleges and associations.
Sorry fellow white dudes, we still have so many comparative advantages and there is too much systemic racism and misogyny left to address before a white or men only club is in any way comparable.
- This actually is still helpful for us white dudes, if you meet another white guy that gets pissy about exclusive spaces you know that person isn’t worth talking to anymore!
- No, that is a double-standard, it’s just a double-standard you’re arguing is justified.
  
  The definition of a double standard is that it's unjust. At least, in common English.
  
  it would be more of a double standard if the two groups were on equal footing, but they're not.
- Reverse discrimination is not an answer to the issue of discrimination - it is discrimination in itself.
  Excluding any group of people is not only wrong in itself, but likely to drive a negative response from the people excluded, likely fueling movements against it - and against equality activists at large. You'll be seen as hypocrites at best, and along with you everyone who just genuinely wishes for people to become fully equal.
  This is not the way.
  
  Reverse discrimination isn't a thing. It is a good sign that the person using the term is a moron because as you noted, discrimination is just discrimination.
  But minorities and women having their own spaces isn't discrimination. Women's sports leagues isn't discrimination. It is a response to being discriminated against for decades or centuries. So are black colleges, which were a response to being excluded from most universities. They exist because otherwise they wouldn't have been able to do those things because of the actual discrimination. It simply isn't the same thing at all because of the larger context.
  On a side note, the whole transphobic 'no trans women in women's sports' bullshit is discrimination because it further excludes an even smaller portion of the population that is discriminated against even more than women.
  
  It isn't an "answer" to anything, it is necessary for a feeling of safety and togetherness in certain vulnerable people at certain times. You must get past the fact that you weren't invited and accept that this is good for some of us. Give in a little, and take in so much more in the long run
- Add to this the previously white fictional characters being replaced with actors of color and I couldn't care less. The market will decide if it was a good idea with ratings. Sometimes it's a smashing success other times a complete disaster.
  
  I remember seeing some neckbeard-ass post on Reddit when the live-action Little Mermaid trailer came out, saying how it wouldn't make sense for somebody living in that region of the ocean to have dark skin because of the longitude and depth of the water, etc...
  Like... You're really trying to argue the scientific accuracy of... [checks notes] ... a fucking MERMAID? Spare everybody the mental gymnastics and just say you don't like black people.
  
  My only argument against that stuff is make a whole new character or your just pandering disingenuously.
  But for the most part I agree.
- Asking as a brown person, can you tell me what advantages white people are receiving that I'm not?
  
  I scanned your comments and you're not totally off your rocker, so I'll not be as big of an ass as I usual am.
  Your experience is an anecdote. The plural of anecdote is not "data".
  The data shows that minorities are unfairly targeted by police. Arrested more, released more as innocent. Prosecuted more for the same rate of incidence.
  The data shows that having an "ethnic" name gets fewer responses to an identical resume.
  The data shows that for literal decades, some would say still, minorities couldn't get home loans in good areas with good schools.
  What benefit do white people have? I have never, literally not once, thought or cared about my race. My privilege is getting to live without noticing my race in any meaningful context. That's why white people have to be "woken". We're comfortably asleep in our bubble, from birth.
  If you don't see it, great! But that might say less about reality, and more about your ability to perceive it.
  
  There are people out there that would not hire you based on the only thing I know about you. I've met enough of them that I have to assume there are more.
  
  I can talk back to the police in a non-violent setting without getting shot.
  As a white male, there is zero chance of deing discriminated against when applying for 95% of jobs.
  I can walk into most buildings without being questioned. Nobody has ever told me that I don't belong somewhere because of who I am.
  While whites that live in poverty can face some discrimination compared to middle class whites, $100 in clothing is enough to fit in most public spaces without drawing any attention. Minorities can't do that.
  Those are the most obvious things, but they also mean that my economic and social standing basically went up my entire life by just being polite and working. That builds on itself, and while not all white men are successful. Being white isn't one of their hurdles.
  All of those things are advantages compared to people who are not white males.
  
  I don't know your situation, but I certainly can tell you that at least in the Western Hemisphere, in the aggregate descendants of indigenous people and slaves are overcoming systemic injustice that robbed their ancestors of economic advantages, dignity, and liberty, and often introduced intergenerational trauma as well. And I don't mean, like, in the past, redlining for example was legal within our parents lifetime and related forms of discrimination are still practiced today.
  
  I can tell cops to fuck themselves with zero fear of reprisal because I look and sound wealthy enough to sue.
  edit: Statistically speaking as a white guy im ~50% less likely to be shot by police.
- I agree in regards to whites only spaces, but men's only spaces have apolitical reasons to exist (just as not all of the reasons for women's only spaces to exist are political.) The experience of being male is just different and sometimes some people just need space to discuss.
  
  We aren't talking about men's support groups for victims of violence, or things of that nature.
- If you don't let white men have a space at the table they'll make their own and they won't let anyone else sit with them, just saying.
  
  We already do, and have done, for centuries.

Some people can be trusted with some responsibility, and others can't.

i am not 100% confident but this question reminds me of the paradox of tolerance argument.

Four lefts aren't a right, but three lefts are.
- How about 4 slight lefts?

Binary
- What about boolean though? /s
  
  When I lean into them all I get is boos.

A bubble bastard. It sounds like a double standard, but it most certainly is not.

People often ask me how or why I work for a media company that works in front of recording footage if I have stage fright. One does not necessitate having to expect the other, which is good because there's very little I can do work-wise.

Men hitting women is different from women hitting men.
- Bullshit. Nobody should hit anyone, and it's illegal both ways.
  
  I agree. I'm talking more morally and less legally. I've seen countless videos where a woman is feebly tapping or shoving a man, the man is clearly physically unbothered and unhurt, but his ego is bruised, so he KOs her with one punch. Then the comments come flooding in about how she deserved it, "equal rights equal fights" etc.
  It's not a fair fight. Of course there are exceptions, there are exceptions to everything. But for most people most of the time, a woman hitting a man is nowhere near as physically impactful as a man hitting a woman. The 'toolset' is undeniably different.
  If a 5-foot man slaps a 6-foot man, and the 6-foot man laughs and then beats the shit out of the smaller guy and stomps on his head, most people would look down on the bigger man for taking it too far with someone he could easily beat and who presented no real physical threat to him. It's like that. I'm not denying the agency of the woman, or saying that her assaulting a man is fine, it's that the response to it from the man is usually an order of magnitude more severe with half the effort. And again, I know there are exceptions to this. Men can be abused and beaten by women, domestic violence against men should be taken more seriously.
  In street/bar fights, where a woman is picking a fight with a man, the man is rightly restrained by societal pressure to not unload on her the way he would if it were a man picking a fight with him. This isn't sexism or baseless gender roles or any of that, it's because most of the time, untrained men are wielding a sledgehammer to an untrained woman's carpentry hammer (untrained in combat sports, I mean). So in that way, it's not a double-standard despite sounding like one, no more than it's a double standard to not beat the shit out of another man half your size when you would beat the shit out of him for the same offence if he were your size or bigger. Not that we should beat anyone up, of course! But it happens and will always happen, so it's nice to have at least one broad rule in an otherwise-ruleless endeavour: men shouldn't beat the shit out of women unless they really need to, to defend themselves from an actual threat, a threat to something more than their ego or temper.
  P.S. Thanks for replying without calling me a misandrist or telling me to kill myself 💗 Genuinely appreciate it!
- Nope, exactly the same.
  It's more common for a woman to hit a man as a self-defense, but this doesn't mean women are not capable of an assault, it does happen and is no less violent.
  We should look at the exact circumstances, not genders.
  
  I agree that violence is violence, however, the legal repercussions are very often not the same, the public repercussions are often not the same.
- So, if I hit Rhonda Rousey with my weak-ass jab and she uppercuts me through the ceiling in response, I should still be the one who gets the harsher punishment, right?
  Dumbass misandrist logic. Just accept that no one should be hitting anyone and punish violent abusers equally.
  
  Hahaha you chose the only argument that could've sounded dumber than the OP comment🤣