## Summary A tactic for establishing a [[Double Standard]] through repeatedly contravening behavioral standards in a given space, then portraying all past and future bad behavior as an inevitable part of a pattern. This concept can be illustrated with the example of a formal gathering where someone has brought their young child; if an adult were to openly pick their nose, they would certainly receive piercing looks and potentially get tossed out of the event. On the other hand, if the child were to pick their nose and smear mucus on the walls, they may be gently told to stop by an adult, but would not receive any meaningful consequences because they are not seen to be rational agents in full control of their actions. The difference between the illustrative scenario and the larger phenomenon is that, if the subject is actually a young child, they truly *are* irrational and lacking self-control to no fault of their own; the trick for a malicious actor is to find a way to strip themself of *perceived* agency, while retaining their actual status. Usually, this is done by knowingly framing past failures as irrational but inevitable reactions to the behavior of another actor, in order to disestablish agency and therefore shirk accountability for their current and future excesses. To those opposing the childish actor's behavior, they may feel as if they are "punching down" and being unfair in assigning blame. This is of course by design. ## Examples Donald Trump is the most prominent example of this; his long history of saying outrageous and disgusting things, combined with his many criminal and otherwise monumentally unethical acts, creates a standard for him that is significantly lower than the standard applied to Democrats and even Republicans (that is to say, those not under his protection). He can extend these distorted expectations to anyone he deems worthy of promotion, particularly his handpicked congressional candidates to whom public approval is a significantly more important consideration, though it should be noted that the double standard is not as potent outside of the diehard MAGA base. You will often hear the refrain "that's just Trump being Trump" or minimizing language like "he posts mean Tweets," accompanied by "I wish he wouldn't do \<behavior\>, it really doesn't help/it's not a good look." Note that although the last phrase *sounds* condemnatory, [[False Concessions|it is not a criticism on behavioral grounds]] but instead one of strategy, implying that the person employing the critique is already on board with his agenda and willing to put aside any qualms about the behavior in question, but is concerned that others will not (thus wishing they would). This type of framing is extremely common among more "intellectual" MAGA pundits, such as Ben Shapiro and the others at the Daily Wire, as it becomes necessary as soon as the veneer of rationality is applied; in more troglodytic circles like MAGA Twitter, there is no need for coping strategies because there is no pretense of intellectual consistency. Another common example of this tactic is the "alternative" media space. People who have no journalistic standards whatsoever will constantly opine on the lack of said standards in mainstream outlets and organizations. When pressed on their unethical behavior, they will fall back on [[Schrödinger's Expert]] to explain away their behavior. See [[Schrödinger's Expert#^10b23a|this example about the Joe Rogan Experience podcast]] for more information.