"Tu quoque" vs "selective partisan outrage" in politics

[12AX7]

While there is merit in the arguments therein, strictly speaking the analysis of the fallacy is not accurate. A tu quoque is not saying "it is not bad because both sides do it." If it is saying anything it is "it does not matter, because my opponent is a hypocrite."

If one is going to take a stance on a topic, at least be consistent with all parties involved. When one is not, one is a hypocrite.

You can call it whatever you like when it's pointed out to you.

I thought you weren't coming back to this thread?

 

[The Big Dog]

If one is going to take a stance on a topic, at least be consistent with all parties involved. When one is not, one is a hypocrite.

You can call it whatever you like when it's pointed out to you.

I thought you weren't coming back to this thread?

Ok, We'll call it a fallacy, and ad hominem, and attacking the arguerer. But if that is all you have I guess that is what you have to go with.

I don't really have a good idea what you thought, but it appears that you have inadvertently started an interesting thread.

 

[12AX7]

Ok, We'll call it a fallacy, and ad hominem, and attacking the arguerer. But if that is all you have I guess that is what you have to go with.

I don't really have a good idea what you thought, but it appears that you have inadvertently started an interesting thread.

I thought I would ask the difference between pointing out a poster's politically-motivated hypocrisy and their definition of tu quoque.

Apparently everybody's guilty of some "they do it too!" tu quoque now and then.

Like I said upthread, asking for clarification on an apparent hypocritical position is either a fallacy or against the forum rules. A perfect spot in the gray area for a hypocrite to hide in.

 

[12AX7]

Compare how intensive the outrage is when someone whose "side" they are with does it and when their "opponent" does it. Do they downplay the importance and significance when it's the former and treat it as something really noteworthy and significant when it's the latter? Then it's likely to be pure partisan double standards at play.

When something identical happens on "my team", I want it examined to the exact same extent the "other team" was examined, both by the proper authorities and pundits alike. Nothing more and certainly nothing less.

Apparently this painfully simple concept is lost on some.

 

[The Big Dog]

I thought I would ask the difference between pointing out a poster's politically-motivated hypocrisy and their definition of tu quoque.

Apparently everybody's guilty of some "they do it too!" tu quoque now and then.

Like I said upthread, asking for clarification on an apparent hypocritical position is either a fallacy or against the forum rules. A perfect spot in the gray area for a hypocrite to hide in.

Apparently! LOLZ! I am not sure that pointing out that there are racists is both political parties is a tu quoque fallacy, but I cheerfully concede that I might be mistaken.

When something identical happens on "my team", I want it examined to the exact same extent the "other team" was examined, both by the proper authorities and pundits alike. Nothing more and certainly nothing less.

Apparently this painfully simple concept is lost on some.

This painfully simple concept is a painfully simple logical fallacy.

Something "identical" happens? This brings us to another point. Do you really believe that it makes sense to derail a thread about a current event to debate whether something is identical? Example: Do we really want to debate whether the fact that one person destroyed tens of thousands of emails is worse than another person's erasing 18 minutes of tape? Some would say they are identical, others might say that intentionally destroying emails is much worse. Seems like it is a derail, doesn't it?

 

[12AX7]

Something "identical" happens?

Yes. Or as close to "identical" as one can get. Perhaps "very similar" would have been better.

This brings us to another point. Do you really believe that it makes sense to derail a thread about a current event to debate whether something is identical?

Asking someone what position they took last time their side did something very similar is not a derail. Quite possibly the position taken in the former can be applied to the latter.

Often it's not. Then guess what it becomes?

Partisan-based hypocrisy.

Example: Do we really want to debate whether the fact that one person destroyed tens of thousands of emails is worse than another person's erasing 18 minutes of tape?

Apples and oranges. These aren't near similar (or even identical). Now, if you want to debate why someone would be upset over the destruction of "tens of thousands of emails" vs. why someone wasn't the least bit bothered by the destruction of over 5 million emails, then we have a similar event (just the number of emails and the party changes). When that person's position on the former is different from the latter, know what it looks like?

Partisan-based hypocrisy.

Some would say they are identical, others might say that intentionally destroying emails is much worse. Seems like it is a derail, doesn't it?

No.

But if they are both ilegal, then they both should be investigated with the same due dilligence previous infractions were investigated with. They certainly don't warrant investigation after investigation after investigation until a conclusion is reached that they agree with, particularly if this wasn't done previously, simply because of partisan politics.

Now, I'm done with you. I can't explain this any simpler. I'm going to take GodMark2's advice:

I've come to the conclusion that there is a subset of people that simply don't understand the concept of hypocracy. To them the "Good guys" are allowed to use any and all means to win, and rules only apply to "The Other Guys". They live by "the end justifies the means". It's all "Us vs Them" and there can't possibly be a middle ground. These people feel that "If you're not for us, you're against us", so by extension, to them, bringing up past occurences MUST be as an excuse to excuse the current behavior.

Once you realize that's how they think, it's easy to understand their thinking that mentioning any of "their side's" past behaviors MUST be a tu quoque: Because there isn't any other reason "the enemy" would bring it up.

You can have the last word.

 

[stevea]

I get this all the time on Facebook.

I post something explaining my annoyance at Repubs for the letter to Iran, or for Hillary using a private e-mail account...and I get replies with links to "when a dem" did that or "when a repub" did that.

I claim, "tu quoque doesn't work for me."

I feel your pain ! I get nailed as tho' I'm a Rep on this forum b/c I more often see excesses of liberalism here. On other forums I'm rejected as a Lib for the obverse reason. The partisans can't generally construct any sort of rebuttal until they pigeon-hole the opponents ideology and then attack that ideology. IOW they refuse to address the actual argument and use these diversions from the topics - just as tu quoque.

But it's only tu quoque if the thing that follows "when a [dem|repub] did that" implies you are hypocritical and didn't treat the issue evenly in both cases. If they are citing a comparable case to support their argument, that's no fallacy. "When Petreus did it he was convicted and paid a big fine" might be a counter example rather than a tu quoque, unless the implication is that you are inconsistent.

The interesting debate point is whether to argue the diversion topic of your claimed hypocrisy and accept the diversion, or to reject the diversion. The best course probably depends on context.

If one is going to take a stance on a topic, at least be consistent with all parties involved. When one is not, one is a hypocrite.

But this "consistency" is dependent on cases being identical and no two cases are identical. Is support/opposition of Obama re-signing the patriot act the same as Bush2 signing the original months after 911 ? Whether it's inconsistent or not is dependent on the principals the proponent is arguing, and often on a forum like this - that is omitted. Don't be too quick to claim things are "the same", or that "the other is a hypocrite". They might have a valid reason for treating two distinct cases differently (tho more often not wrt politics IMO).

btw - thanks for the good thread.

 

[The Big Dog]

snip

I love ya man! You seem outraged over the emails that were destroyed in 2007 but give it a no big deal in 2015?

Say that sounds like .... partisan hypocrisy!

That is another reason why tu quoque fallacies are so abysmal. the people that are making them usually don't realize that they are acting hypocritically.

Say, I would have no problem whatsoever if whoever destroyed those emails in 2007 ended up in the jail cell right next to one containing the person who destroyed the emails in 2015!

Non-partisan enough for you?

 

[12AX7]

But this "consistency" is dependent on cases being identical and no two cases are identical. Is support/opposition of Obama re-signing the patriot act the same as Bush2 signing the original months after 911 ? Whether it's inconsistent or not is dependent on the principals the proponent is arguing, and often on a forum like this - that is omitted. Don't be too quick to claim things are "the same", or that "the other is a hypocrite". They might have a valid reason for treating two distinct cases differently (tho more often not wrt politics IMO).

btw - thanks for the good thread.

An excellent point. The highlighted part is why I feel it necessary to ask if the positions are the same; if not, then why.

 

[bruto]

I have always thought that the "tu quoque" fallacy applies to the substance of a charge. If a thing is wrong, it's wrong no matter who else does it.

I don't think that the same fallacy applies in criticizing selective outrage. It would be "tu quoque" I think if you took a conservative to task for criticizing a liberal gaffe, no matter who else does it. It would not, I think, to point out that the volume of his outrage is disproportionate.

 

[The Big Dog]

I noticed that there was a thread that was started in 2007 about emails that had not been touched since bush was president.

Suddenly the presumptive presidential candidate has an email problem, and suddenly people are up in arms about the 2007 emails.

Hmmm... Tu quoque? Derail? Selective partisanship?

Things that make you say, hmmmmm.

 

[rustypouch]

I noticed that there was a thread that was started in 2007 about emails that had not been touched since bush was president.

Suddenly the presumptive presidential candidate has an email problem, and suddenly people are up in arms about the 2007 emails.

Hmmm... Tu quoque? Derail? Selective partisanship?

Things that make you say, hmmmmm.

Link?

Bush was president in 2007... so your time frame is so small as to be undefinable.

Unless you're talking about Bush I. But email really wasn't really a thing in '93.

 

[Foolmewunz]

It's hard to judge this topic without logger and ElfGrinder2k participating. You do want the opinions of the professionals, after all.

The bottom line, to me, is whether we consider use of an informal fallacy to really negate the point being made by the person using it.

If we hem in the discussion of the latest outrage on the left or right to the actual facts and elements surrounding the particular action or statement, then sure... a Tu Quoque loses the formal debate.

But since these discussions are not "formal debates", I don't really think I'm giving gotcha points to either side when they point out that the person crying glennbeck tears has ignored similar actions, or actually supported them, when performed on their own side of the aisle. I'll see your "waaaah that's a tu quoque fallacy" and raise you "Objection over-ruled. I agree with the plaintiff, it goes to credibility of the witness."

It's used around here (by both sides... I repeat) like bigots use the race-card-card. It's to disarm your opponent by shouting "Tu Quoque, I Win!" It's sort of like Mornington Crescent for Skeptics.

And we see both sides use it in the same debate.
"Oh, yeah.... where were your complaints when Walker was doing it; you seem very concerned that Hillary is?"
"I'm rubber and you're glue. Where was your defense of Cheney, Walker and Powell. Only when it's a Lib, LOL?!"

Either admit that we're arguing for the partisan side or take a thinking-person's approach to these questions. It's no saner or more supportable for Paula Progressive to use campaign contributions to landscape her house than it is for Carolyn Conservative. If you split hairs on the finer points and the amounts of the corruption, you're probably a partisan. If you view the cases in detail and come down with variations of culpability according to the actual facts, then call yourself a critical thinker or skeptic, at least for that instance.

One poster in this thread has overtly demonstrated that objectivity. Happens to be a poster normally tagged "a conservative". Big deal. Anyone can be fair. You just have to try. Unfortunately, most of us root for our home teams and it comes out in who/what we're willing to defend/attack.

 

[The Big Dog]

Link?

Bush was president in 2007... so your time frame is so small as to be undefinable.

Unless you're talking about Bush I. But email really wasn't really a thing in '93.

top of the second page of the usa politics section

 

[thaiboxerken]

Tu Quoque is where Republicans think it's ok to be racist today because some Democrats in the 60's were racist.

 

[12AX7]

Tu Quoque is where Republicans think it's ok to be racist today because some Democrats in the 60's were racist.

Huh. I thought it was when it was OK for Reagan and Bush to issue immigration Executive Orders but not Obama.

 

[twinstead]

"it's OK if our side does it but not when your side does it" pretty much defines the current political environment in the US today

ETA: It pretty much defines the political environment of any age since the dawn of mankind

 

[Tony Stark]

Huh. I thought it was when it was OK for Reagan and Bush to issue immigration Executive Orders but not Obama.

It was OK for Reagan and Bush to run up budget deficits. But when Obama does it due to the Bush economic downturn, Bush tax cuts, and Bush wars, Obama is destroying America.

 

[The Big Dog]

Huh. I thought it was when it was OK for Reagan and Bush to issue immigration Executive Orders but not Obama.

It was OK for Reagan and Bush to run up budget deficits. But when Obama does it due to the Bush economic downturn, Bush tax cuts, and Bush wars, Obama is destroying America.

Great examples of tu quoques fallacies fellas!

 

[fuelair]

One of them is easier to pronounce.

and to spell!!!