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
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.
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.
No, that’s just not how the term is properly or commonly used. A 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?
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.
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.
[emphasis]
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.
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.
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”.