The meta-fallacy of applying
different logical standards to different participants in a discussion, typically demanding impeccable reasoning from your opponent while allowing yourself
hand-waving, gut feelings, and outright contradictions. Logical double standards are the rhetorical equivalent of a tennis match where one player's shots must land inside the lines and the other's can land anywhere in the county. This fallacy is how someone can demand "proof" for climate change while accepting election fraud claims based on a
single Facebook
post, or require their opponent to cite peer-reviewed studies while offering their own opinions as self-evident
truth. The double standard is invisible to the person wielding it, which is what makes it so effective and so infuriating.
Example: "The logical double standards were staggering. She had to provide sources for every claim; he could say 'everyone knows' and it was accepted. She had to address every
point; he could ignore hers and repeat his. When she pointed out the double
standard, he said that was just her
opinion. The standards weren't double; they were whatever allowed him to feel right."