Unrealistic beauty standards

Wow my modren met... Only one of those is unrealistic.

Hym "So, I took a peak at this article by 'my modern met' and it's called 'A.I. generates the perfect people and something something unrealistic beauty standards,' right? And the pictures they show is 1. A regular looking attractive Hispanic woman (Who is as a matter of fact NOT more attractive than Salma Hayek) and 2. The most shredded guy that could ever possibly exist. 0% body fat. So much muscle that you couldn't actually fit thay much muscle on a man with out him being larger. Obviously had a 12 pack. More shredded than a comic book character. Even the male fantasy of fitness pales in comparison to the A.I. generated man. I mean, you can't see the fat bulge in his artificially generated trousers but you know it's there. So, according to A.I. Salma Hayek is beyond perfect and the perfect man is a 9 foot tall Arnold Schwarzenegger who got hit with a shrink ray. You can't have that much muscle and be that small but BOTH of those are somehow unrealistic. It's unrealistic for a woman to be less attractive than Salma Hayek. It's wild. Look it up."

by Hym Iam May 28, 2023

Evidence Double Standards

The hypocritical application of radically different levels of scrutiny and standards for accepting evidence based on whether the evidence supports or challenges one's preferred conclusion. Evidence for the favored view is accepted with minimal question, while evidence against it is subjected to impossible, moving-target demands for perfection.

Example: An activist accepts a single, methodologically shaky study showing benefits of their preferred policy as "proof," but demands five gold-standard, multi-decade, replicative studies before accepting any evidence of potential harms—a classic Evidence Double Standards maneuver.

by Dumu The Void February 4, 2026

Logical Double Standards

The meta-fallacy of applying different logical standards to different participants in a discussion, typically demanding impeccable reasoning from your opponent while allowing yourself hand-waving, gut feelings, and outright contradictions. Logical double standards are the rhetorical equivalent of a tennis match where one player's shots must land inside the lines and the other's can land anywhere in the county. This fallacy is how someone can demand "proof" for climate change while accepting election fraud claims based on a single Facebook post, or require their opponent to cite peer-reviewed studies while offering their own opinions as self-evident truth. The double standard is invisible to the person wielding it, which is what makes it so effective and so infuriating.

Example: "The logical double standards were staggering. She had to provide sources for every claim; he could say 'everyone knows' and it was accepted. She had to address every point; he could ignore hers and repeat his. When she pointed out the double standard, he said that was just her opinion. The standards weren't double; they were whatever allowed him to feel right."

by Dumu The Void February 15, 2026

Logical Double Standards

A fallacy where someone applies logical standards inconsistently—accusing opponents of fallacies while committing the same ones, demanding evidence they don't provide, requiring certainty they don't practice. The classic form: accusing someone of "jumping to conclusions" while leaping to your own; crying "ad hominem" while attacking character; demanding "evidence" while ignoring counter-evidence. Logical Double Standards reveal that the invocation of logic is often strategic, not principled—logic as weapon, not tool. The double standard is the point: one rule for them, another for us.

"He accused me of hasty generalization based on three examples, then generalized about my entire argument from one comment. That's Logical Double Standards—his generalization is analysis; mine is fallacy. The standard isn't logic; it's convenience. Double standards are what happen when logic becomes a jersey you wear, not a game you play."

by Dumu The Void March 3, 2026

Logical Double Standards

The practice of applying different logical standards to different participants in a discussion—demanding rigorous proof from opponents while accepting hand-waving from allies, requiring formal validity from one side while ignoring fallacies from the other. Logical Double Standards are what make debates unfair: one side must meet impossible standards; the other side can say anything. They're the signature of bad-faith arguing, of intellectual dishonesty, of debate as performance rather than inquiry. Logical Double Standards make genuine dialogue impossible because the playing field is never level.

Example: "He demanded she provide peer-reviewed studies for every claim, while his own claims were supported by 'common sense' and 'everyone knows.' Logical Double Standards in action: one rule for her, another for him. The debate wasn't fair; it was rigged."

by Dumu The Void March 10, 2026

Rational Double Standards

The practice of applying different standards of rationality to different people or positions—deeming one's own reasoning rational while dismissing similar reasoning from opponents as irrational. Rational Double Standards are what allow people to see their own biases as insights, their own emotions as intuitions, their own leaps as logic—while seeing the same things in others as errors. They're the cognitive machinery of hypocrisy, the engine of special pleading, the foundation of every double standard that privileges one's own side.

Example: "His gut feeling was intuition; her gut feeling was irrational emotion. Rational Double Standards in action: same phenomenon, different labels, depending on who was experiencing it. The double standard was invisible to him, which is how it worked."

by Dumu The Void March 10, 2026

Reason Double Standards

The practice of applying different standards of reason to different people or positions—treating one's own reasoning as reasonable while dismissing comparable reasoning from others as unreasonable. Reason Double Standards are the everyday currency of argument, the unspoken assumption that "my reasons are reasons; yours are rationalizations." They make genuine dialogue impossible because they ensure that one side is always already reasonable and the other always already wrong.

Example: "His reasons were careful analysis; her reasons were just rationalizations. Reason Double Standards in action: same thing, different labels, depending on who was doing the reasoning. The double standard was invisible to him, which is how it worked."

by Dumu The Void March 10, 2026