<This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person's claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This type of "argument" has the following form:

1.Person A makes claim X.
2.Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
3.Therefore X is false.

The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false (although of any pair of inconsistent claims only one can be true - but both can be false). Also, the fact that a person's claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.



The truth of the claims is irrelevant. I'm talking about the difference in judgment applied by the press and the liberals to equivalent actions. The left gets a pass, and the right gets pilloried. It's that simple.

As the last sentence of the definition says, the actions might indicate the person is a hypocrite. Bingo. That's what "double standard" means. This is why Jesse Jackson, a known anti-Jew, can pop up and call "racism" on others without consequence.