170
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2024
170 points (99.4% liked)
Ask Lemmy
26487 readers
894 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I was certain that a gander was a group of geese. Why? Because apparently everybody who has ever used the phrase "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" around me was using it wrong. I just learned this week that a gander is a male goose. So based on misuse, I thought that the phrase meant that what's beneficial for one is beneficial for the greater group, but what it really means is that what's acceptable in the case for one should be equally acceptable for others in the same situation.
I'm nearly 36 and I would say that I'm smarter than most people, but this was a gaping hole in my knowledge that was pretty damn humbling to learn of and correct.
I learned that in school, when we read a story about a proper gander.
"What's good for the goose is good for the gaggle" still works
Oh wtf, this one got me.
Is this just a "happy wife, happy life" variation?
No, it's more like "if Larry gets a 10% grade reduction for turning his paper in a day late to you, then I shouldn't be getting this 20% grade reduction for turning this paper in a day late to you." It's more of a call for things to be fair and give everybody equal treatment.
There was a recent court decision regarding Donald Trump that, more or less, appointing a special counsel for the purposes of DOJ impartiality is not constitutionally acceptable. As a result, Hunter Biden, who was investigated and prosecuted via special counsel in order to maintain impartiality from the DOJ since his father is the sitting president, essentially argued that "what's good for the goose is good for the gander." Meaning that if Donald Trump should have his case dismissed under the pretext of special counsel being an invalid idea, then so too should Hunter Biden. That decision was already generally seen as fucking silly, but the silliness was put on full display for partisan hacks and their audience.
Well, I just learned something.