# So, Terr, how is Boycott/Divestment/Sanctions anti-Semitic **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 15, 2015, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-terr-how-is-boycott-divestment-sanctions-anti-semitic/722629 "2015-06-15T23:02:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2015, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-terr-how-is-boycott-divestment-sanctions-anti-semitic/722629/141 "2015-06-17T16:17:33Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > If there is a reasonable criterion for separating one target from another then it’s not a double standard. The phrase “double standard” implies the lack of such criterion. A double standard is the application of different sets of principles for similar situations.[1] A double standard may take the form of an instance in which certain concepts (often, for example, a word, phrase, social norm, or rule) are perceived as acceptable to be applied by one group of people, but are considered unacceptable—taboo—when applied by another group. The concept of a double standard has long been applied (as early as 1872) to the fact that different moral structures are often applied to men and women in society.[2][3] A double standard can therefore be described as a biased or morally unfair application of the principle that all are equal in their freedoms. Such double standards are seen as unjustified because they violate a basic maxim of modern legal jurisprudence: that all parties should stand equal before the law. Double standards also violate the principle of justice known as impartiality, which is based on the assumption that the same standards should be applied to all people, without regard to subjective bias or favoritism based on social class, rank, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, age or other distinctions. A double standard violates this principle by holding different people accountable according to different standards. Am I first? You always hurt the one you love. Family dynamics can be the most brutal ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2015, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-terr-how-is-boycott-divestment-sanctions-anti-semitic/722629/142 "2015-06-17T16:19:14Z")
Yes, exactly. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2015, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-terr-how-is-boycott-divestment-sanctions-anti-semitic/722629/143 "2015-06-17T16:19:20Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > There would be no point to having an Israel that wasn’t Jewish. The world made it necessary at that moment and it happened. It was politically possible at that moment, it was no more necessary after the fall of the Nazis as it was before the rise of the Nazis, was it? > [@](#): > > There may have been indigenous people who were displaced but I’d like to know how many. Certainly they could be accommodated. Would your answer depend on the ultimate number? > [@](#): > > Everywhere you look you see Jews helping, participating, inventing, creating. Life would be nasty brutish and short without jews contributions, and that goes for the whole world: Anyone whose life is enlightened or prolonged by science or medicine, or the arts. What civil rights workers got murdered in Mississippi? So maybe the Palestinian thing is the lowpoint of Jewish public life. But I think the world owes the Jews better than a double standard. You mean like the double standard we applied to South Africa despite all sorts of horrible shit going on in other parts of the world? ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2015, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-terr-how-is-boycott-divestment-sanctions-anti-semitic/722629/144 "2015-06-17T16:27:20Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > It was politically possible at that moment, it was no more necessary after the fall of the Nazis as it was before the rise of the Nazis, was it? > > So it was necessary between 1932 and 1945? But not after? > > Would your answer depend on the ultimate number? > > My evaluation would depend on how many were there, how many migrated, and how many are there as refugees from other Arab countries, or maneuvered there for political reasons. > > You mean like the double standard we applied to South Africa despite all sorts of horrible shit going on in other parts of the world? Yes. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2015, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-terr-how-is-boycott-divestment-sanctions-anti-semitic/722629/145 "2015-06-17T16:27:48Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > We can have international arbitrators determine who is entitled to what land and offer a choice between reasonable compensation for the land or the return of the land itself. Israel allowing international arbitrators to decide how much land they are to give away is so far off the table as to be a fantasy. ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2015, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-terr-how-is-boycott-divestment-sanctions-anti-semitic/722629/146 "2015-06-17T16:39:09Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > But the person you quoted didn’t specify academics. It was in response to **IvoryTowerDenizen’s** post, which was speaking about academic life. ETA: See post 2, then post 7. My first post is in response to post 7. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2015, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-terr-how-is-boycott-divestment-sanctions-anti-semitic/722629/147 "2015-06-17T17:30:41Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > As I pointed to on page 1, Terr himself believes that Jews should be voting based on candidates’ position on Israel. I don’t think he’s the only Jew out there that thinks Israel is more “Important” than the country they live in. There are plenty of indidivuals with possibly divided loyalties out there (the same accusation could, for example, be leveled at certain Americans of Arab ancestry). The difference lies in asserting that Jews are different in this respect, as a group; same as asserting that (for example) Americans of Arab or Muslim ancestry, as a group, are not to be trusted because of inherently divided loyalties. The former is an observation about an individual. The latter is a generalization about a group, which can easily shade over into irrational bigotry. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2015, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-terr-how-is-boycott-divestment-sanctions-anti-semitic/722629/148 "2015-06-17T17:40:48Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > If there is a reasonable criterion for separating one target from another then it’s not a double standard. The phrase “double standard” implies the lack of such criterion. No, both are “double standards”. Having a “double standard” may be justifiable or it may not. The typical example of a “double standard” is that of sexual mores between men and women prior to the sexual revolution (and to a lesser extent still exists). Everyone would admit that a double standard existed - what differed was that, for some, such a standard was justified (mostly on paternalistic grounds), while for others it was not. This is a bit of a semantic argument though - in either case, the actual issue is whether holding Israel to a higher standard is justified, whether you label that a “double standard” or not. It isn’t really arguable that Israel is held to a higher standard than (say) its neighbours. What is arguable is whether this is justified. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2015, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-terr-how-is-boycott-divestment-sanctions-anti-semitic/722629/149 "2015-06-17T17:47:31Z")
No, that’s just not how the term is properly or commonly used. A [double standard](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/double-standard) is an unfair use of a different principle to apply to the same or similar factual situation. If it is fair, it isn’t a double standard. It’s just a semantic error, true. But it’s pretty important semantics in the context of discussing whether BDS supporters employ a double standard or not. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2015, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-terr-how-is-boycott-divestment-sanctions-anti-semitic/722629/150 "2015-06-17T17:56:32Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > No, that’s just not how the term is properly or commonly used. A [double standard](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/double-standard) is an unfair use of a different principle to apply to the same or similar factual situation. If it is fair, it isn’t a double standard. > > It’s just a semantic error, true. But it’s pretty important semantics in the context of discussing whether BDS supporters employ a double standard or not. So … in your view the argument must be framed as ‘a different, higher standard applies to Israel, which may or may not be a “double standard” depending on whether one accepts the justification for it put forward by those who support it’. In short, like every single other “double standard” that has ever existed. Supporters of such things never, ever claim that they are “unfair”, do they? How, for example, if I was a patriachal sort who thought that ladies should properly be treated differently from gentlemen, would I properly refer to this difference? A “different” standard? A “better” standard? ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2015, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-terr-how-is-boycott-divestment-sanctions-anti-semitic/722629/151 "2015-06-17T17:59:10Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > No, that’s just not how the term is properly or commonly used. A [double standard](http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/double-standard) is an unfair use of a different principle to apply to the same or similar factual situation. If it is fair, it isn’t a double standard. > > It’s just a semantic error, true. But it’s pretty important semantics in the context of discussing whether BDS supporters employ a double standard or not. Well you just fulcrummed it on the word “fair” which is a problem for your argument. If you put the boot in to one person because they can pay up, and let all the others go because you have less belief they will do that, that isn’t fair. Treating me differently for pragmatic reasons can be unfair. Again from Wiki: A double standard can therefore be described as a biased or morally unfair application of the principle that all are equal in their freedoms. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2015, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-terr-how-is-boycott-divestment-sanctions-anti-semitic/722629/152 "2015-06-17T18:03:19Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > So … in your view the argument must be framed as ‘a different, higher standard applies to Israel, which may or may not be a “double standard” depending on whether one accepts the justification for it put forward by those who support it’. > > In short, like every single other “double standard” that has ever existed. > > Supporters of such things never, ever claim that they are “unfair”, do they? > > How, for example, if I was a patriachal sort who thought that ladies should properly be treated differently from gentlemen, would I properly refer to this difference? A “different” standard? A “better” standard? Yes, of course? Isn’t that all utterly obvious? It’s not “my view.” It’s the dictionary. And yes, people often disagree about whether something is a double standard or not, with the crux of that disagreement being whether there is a proper justification for the difference. You do an end-run around debate about the presence or absence of justification if you just jump to declaring something to be a double standard _regardless of the outcome of that debate_. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2015, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-terr-how-is-boycott-divestment-sanctions-anti-semitic/722629/153 "2015-06-17T18:10:59Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Yes, of course? Isn’t that all utterly obvious? It’s not “my view.” It’s the dictionary. And yes, people often disagree about whether something is a double standard or not, with the crux of that disagreement being whether there is a proper justification for the difference. > > You do an end-run around debate about the presence or absence of justification if you just jump to declaring something to be a double standard _regardless of the outcome of that debate_. Uh, no. That only occurs if you accept that a “double standard” must, of necessity, be “unjustified”. How does that happen if instead one is outright stating that it may be justified or not - Which I expressly did? What you are doing here is “begging the question” - insisting that the term carries a particular meaning (after I’ve stated I’m using it differently). A meaning, BTW, that is perfectly acceptable, depending on which dictionary one chooses. > [@](#): > > any code or set of principles containing different provisions for one group of people than for another, especially an unwritten code of sexual behavior permitting men more freedom than women. [emphasis] > **[Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/double%20standard)** > > The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years! In any event it is an irrelevance. I don’t really care how the debate is framed - do it your way is fine by me. The substance remains the same. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2015, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-terr-how-is-boycott-divestment-sanctions-anti-semitic/722629/154 "2015-06-17T18:17:42Z")
Looked at the paper dictionary on my desk - the Canadian Oxford Dictionary. “Double standard” is there defined as follows: > [@](#): > > a rule or principle applied more strictly to some people than to others (or to oneself). Seems exact to me. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2015, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-terr-how-is-boycott-divestment-sanctions-anti-semitic/722629/155 "2015-06-17T18:33:04Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > What you are doing here is “begging the question” - insisting that the term carries a particular meaning (after I’ve stated I’m using it differently). A meaning, BTW, that is perfectly acceptable, depending on which dictionary one chooses. That’s sort of an ironic comment coming from the poster trying to persuade people that a double standard is in use while defining a double standard so broadly as to apply regardless of the actual argument about whether a double standard is in use. You are of course free to use the term in a non-standard way, and I agree that your post made it clear you were doing so. But it just struck me as a kind of rhetorical trick worth calling out, to use a term with a clear negative connotation and define it non-standardly in such a way as to be able to apply it to your opponents. Based on your last post, perhaps this is a true linguistic difference, though I strongly suspect even the Canadians require the difference in application to be unfair or unjustified, notwithstanding the dictionary you cite. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2015, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-terr-how-is-boycott-divestment-sanctions-anti-semitic/722629/156 "2015-06-17T18:44:10Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > That’s sort of an ironic comment coming from the poster trying to persuade people that a double standard is in use while defining a double standard so broadly as to apply regardless of the actual argument about whether a double standard is in use. > > You are of course free to use the term in a non-standard way, and I agree that your post made it clear you were doing so. But it just struck me as a kind of rhetorical trick worth calling out, to use a term with a clear negative connotation and define it non-standardly in such a way as to be able to apply it to your opponents. > > Based on your last post, perhaps this is a true linguistic difference, though I strongly suspect even the Canadians require the difference in application to be unfair or unjustified, notwithstanding the dictionary you cite. Huh? You alleged to prove your point by citing a dictionary containing the definition you are asserting. I have now cited two dictionaries containing the definition I am asserting. You only win the argument if “double standard” always and inevitably means “unfair”. I win the argument if “double standard” does not always or inevitably mean “unfair”. Seems to me that if the argument is based on evidence rather than assertion, I win it. Now, no doubt in most cases “double standards” are unfair - hence the fact that this shows up in the definition sometimes. But it isn’t, as the evidence shows, an invariable part of the definition. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2015, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-terr-how-is-boycott-divestment-sanctions-anti-semitic/722629/157 "2015-06-17T18:50:11Z")
When is a double standard not unfair? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2015, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-terr-how-is-boycott-divestment-sanctions-anti-semitic/722629/158 "2015-06-17T18:53:31Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > When is a double standard not unfair. When it is justified because the persons treated differently are in fact different in some way that matters. ---
**Author:** ![drad\_dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/aeb1de/32.png) [@drad\_dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drad_dog)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2015, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-terr-how-is-boycott-divestment-sanctions-anti-semitic/722629/159 "2015-06-17T19:06:12Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > When it is justified because the persons treated differently are in fact different in some way that matters. “…to me!” You’re prob facetious here. I think that would be defined as “not a double standard” “Some animals are more equal than others, and some situations are less different than others”? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [June 17, 2015, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-terr-how-is-boycott-divestment-sanctions-anti-semitic/722629/160 "2015-06-17T19:15:42Z")
> [@drad\_dog](#): > > “…to me!” You’re prob facetious here. > > I think that would be defined as “not a double standard” > > “Some animals are more equal than others, and some situations are less different than others”? There are lots of situations in which it would be arguably fair to treat some people differently than others. The term “double standard” is most commonly applied to differences in treatment between men and women. In some cases, a “double standard” there was, arguably, justified - in most cases, it was not. For example: “resolved: it is fair to exclude transgender persons originally born as men from women’s sports competitions, but not to exclude transgender persons originally born as women from men’s sports competitions. This double standard is justified because athletes who were originally born as men tend, on average, to be larger and stronger that athletes originally born as women, and so have an advantage”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-terr-how-is-boycott-divestment-sanctions-anti-semitic/722629.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-terr-how-is-boycott-divestment-sanctions-anti-semitic/722629.md?page=9)