Double Standards In Politics

Politics is filled with double standards, everyone knows that. It's well established that American politics, especially within the political commentary sphere, is filled wall to wall with hypocrites, hacks, and partisans. Oh my!
However, what no one seems to point out is how many of these double standards seem to benefit the right and put more restrictions on the left. While some of these examples have been talked about before, this column will put it in a new perspective. That being focusing on how Republicans have used these double standards to put the left in a lose-lose situation in order to make it so, no matter what, they are right in more ways than one. Even when it is obvious the right is wrong. 
Here's one of my favorite examples, look at how the new-right has responded to the masterpiece cakeshop incident. Here's how Dave Rubin, in a video with nearly 18 million views, responded when talking about in on Prager"U": 

A government that can force Christians to violate their conscience can force me to violate mine. If a baker won't bake a cake, find another baker, don't demand the state tell him what to do with his private business.

Okay, that's all fine and good but PragerU, the channel that made the video that was just quoted, tried to sue YouTube for restricting some of their videos. Yet no one said "find another website" and "don't demand the state tell YouTube what they do with their private business". 
This puts anyone with a consistent position in a giant lose-lose position that makes it so anyone who disagrees can scream the leftist hates the first amendment. Let's say you agree with Rubin and not with Prager, that means you hate freedom of speech because you don't think YouTube should have to put these videos up. Now let's say that you agree with Dennis and not Rubin, that means you hate freedom of association because you don't think companies should not be able to choose who they serve. 
This isn't even the worst example involving this case. This has been brought up before, but Paul Joseph Watson did the same thing just with more loaded language:

Twitter has suspended know Alt-Right extremist Seven Crowder . . . Censorship of conservatives MUST be addressed by lawmakers.

Vs.

. . . No one should be forced to provide a service. Just as a gay-owned print shop shouldn't be forced to make signs for the Westboro Baptist Church.

Republicans are currently abusing it with the idea of "civility". To be clear: you should be nice to someone you are debating, and of course being rational and not being overly rude is important. However, context is always important. If someone is being, well uncivil, then no reasonable person should have an issue with you being equally as "uncivil" back. 
Remember when Samantha Bee insulted Ivanka Trump? What every conservative news outlet, and even many liberal ones, ignored was that she said that in response to ICE taking kids away from families, which Bee felt was worse. Even then, many said Bee should have been fired.
Compare that to when Donald Trump was also obscene when talking about certain countries. Some supporters, such as Paul Joseph Watson, defended the comments (while censoring it). Others, like A.F. Branco, complained that networks covered it. The largest argument, made by people like Paul, was that the president was telling a "harsh truth" and that people who were against it were just "snowflakes".
Again, this is a clear lose-lose situation. If you are against what Bee said, that means you're against "civility". If you are against what Trump said, that means you just hate "harsh truths". Once again, Republicans publish you for having consistent positions. 
However, if you still have any doubt that political discussion has a right-wing bias, just look at the tactics commonly used by the pro-life movement. Let me show you the perfect example of this. 
Recently, the pro-life group Live Action, one of the most popular anti-Planned Parenthood groups which is widely believed to have leaked many videos on PP (including the recent claims they aid people who commit sexual abuse), posted this image on their official Twitter account:

This isn't even a one-off thing from some small internet group by the way. Jesse Helms, a Republican Senator who even spoke at the 1983 March for Life rally, did the same comparison in his memoir Here's Where I Stand. In this book, he wrote that "[abortion] is indeed another kind of holocaust". 
This is actually very similar to something else, that being the "Holocaust on Your Plate" campaign PETA launched in the 2000's. In this campaign PETA put images of meat production next to pictures of death camps and used captions to make it clear they consider them to be the same thing. This campaign was, obviously, hated and is currently one of the most infamous ad campaigns in US history. The other one is considered a perfectly acceptable moral philosophy that people who disagree must consider. Guess which one is more associated with the right and which one is more associated with the left. 
Here's another example, Live Action recently wrote an article on Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, calling her a racist. Here's the preview the organization put on Twitter:

Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger:

Was a eugenicist

So was the person who created fingerprint science. In fact, that person created eugenics. How many articles does have Live Action about how evil fingerprint science is? The answer is 0. 

Spoke to the KKK

 Was that the same KKK that endorsed a certain president of the United States? Despite this Lila Rose, the founder of Live Action, is "very pleased" with Donald Trump. 
They then repeat this point another 4 times without giving any variation. But her point is still valid, Margaret Sanger was a racist. However, it should be noted that Live Action is located in the United States. So if a place is bad because the person or people who found it were racists, what does that make her country? Thomas Jefferson for instance, the author of the Declaration of Independence and 3rd president of the US, owned and raped his slaves. 
While on the topic of Lila specifically, she is one of the prime examples of this. As already established, Lila is a pro-life activist. For instance, recently she posted this:

Children are not the property of adults, nor are they less valuable.

Whether they are teens, pre-adolescents, toddlers, infants, fetuses, or embryos.

Every human at every stage of life has EQUAL dignity.

Abortion is lethal ageism against the most defenseless humans.

This point more or less comes down to "age is only a number", and I can only think of two groups who make that point. One is pro-life activists like Lila, and the other is pedophiles. Yet, for years right-wingers like Rick Santorum and Ben Carson (both of which were Republican presidential candidates during the 2016 election) claimed, with very little push back for a very long time, that legalizing same-sex marriage would lead to acceptance and legalization of pedophilia. It should also be noted that both Santorum and Carson are pro-life. Meanwhile, no leftist has ever dared to make the claim that reversing Roe v. Wade will lead to the removal of the age of consent. 
While on the topic let's Roe our boat over to the Supreme Court (Note: We here at Ephrom Report apologize for that pun) and see what Live Action has to say about that. Well, they currently have three articles up hoping whoever Trump picks to fill Kennedy's seat will reverse the most important case on abortion. While even trying to make people who are against that look like the bad guys. 
Don't believe me? Well when, as they reported, "Senator Dianne Feinstein expressed fear that [Amy Coney] Barrett's Catholic faith would lead her to overturn Roe v. Wade" if Trump were to appoint her, Live Action responded with mockery. Saying "Applying a religious test to someone is, of course, unconstitutional" which is true, but so is overturning a court case because of your religious views.
Here's something I would like the readers at home to do. Imagine if, for instance, a Democrat were to appoint a Muslim justice who, due to his religion, was anti-first amendment. Do you think the response Live Action gave above would be even close to the reaction Republicans would give in my situation? Of course not.
But what do I know? I only have eyes, and the ability to understand when someone is being a hypocrite. However, if you think I'm just being bias I request you to go through the article you just read and see how many times I state my opinion on these issues.