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

[eeyore1954]

and to spell!!!

Not when you have spellchecker

ETA: actually I think spell checker is saying the correct spelling is wrong for me.

 

[eeyore1954]

Is it a tu quoque for me to repsond to an accusation of tu quoque with a tu quoque back.

 

[bruto]

Is it a tu quoque for me to repsond to an accusation of tu quoque with a tu quoque back.

That's fine for you to say!

 

[12AX7]

Is it a tu quoque for me to repsond to an accusation of tu quoque with a tu quoque back.

As long as you were OK with it the first time, but outraged the second time.

 

[epepke]

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.

I want it examined more. That's because I want my team to be better.

 

[The Big Dog]

Is it a tu quoque for me to repsond to an accusation of tu quoque with a tu quoque back.

As long as you were outraged the first time, but OK with it the second time.

 

[12AX7]

I want it examined more. That's because I want my team to be better.

Understood.

In that case, if you want the better team, then pick the one that's demonstrating hypocritical outrage; that way you're safe from any challenged reply to your position. Avid readers of this thread will recall the rules on page 1:

To ask for clarification on an apparent hypocritical position is either a fallacy or against the rules. Not a terrible position to be in if one happens to be a hypocrite.

On a related note, watch how Jon Stewart deals with hypocrisy. NSFHOC:

Stewart Rips Fox News’ ‘Hypocritical Outrage and Sanctimony’ on Benghazi

 

[Checkmite]

Excellent.

To ask for clarification on an apparent hypocritical position is either a fallacy or against the rules. Not a terrible position to be in if one happens to be a hypocrite.

Glad we got that cleared up.

I think context in any given case would make clear whether such a post is actually a "request for clarification" as you put it.

For what it's worth, in my experience in this forum, it rarely is.

 

[The Big Dog]

Understood.

In that case, if you want the better team, then pick the one that's demonstrating hypocritical outrage; that way you're safe from any challenged reply to your position. Avid readers of this thread will recall the rules on page 1:



On a related note, watch how Jon Stewart deals with hypocrisy. NSFHOC:

Stewart Rips Fox News’ ‘Hypocritical Outrage and Sanctimony’ on Benghazi

here is something a bit more recent:

Jon Stewart rips Hillary's ridiculous email excuse

 

[12AX7]

Uh oh. Someone from the tu quoque police should head over to this post quick and point out the fallacy before it gets out of hand.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Is it a tu quoque for me to repsond to an accusation of tu quoque with a tu quoque back.

Not just okay, but a tradition. Of course, the real art is in tu quoque combined with ad hom. Much more effective and the real masters manage to cover both.

<straight tu quoque>
"Your party supports jay-walking."
"You don't seem to care that your party supports vagrancy, I see."

<tu quoque/ad hom>
"Your party supports jay-walking."
"I notice you don't seem to care that that philandering nose-picker, Bill Clinton, supported vagrancy."

<tu quoque>
"What a racist statement!"
"Byrd!"

<tu quoque/ad hom>
"Hillary had a private email system."
"Colin Powell, the famous WMD Cheney mouthpiece, also had a private email system."

The veracity of any of the statements is not important. It's how you apply them.

 

[The Big Dog]

Not just okay, but a tradition. Of course, the real art is in tu quoque combined with ad hom. Much more effective and the real masters manage to cover both.

<straight tu quoque>
"Your party supports jay-walking."
"You don't seem to care that your party supports vagrancy, I see."

<tu quoque/ad hom>
"Your party supports jay-walking."
"I notice you don't seem to care that that philandering nose-picker, Bill Clinton, supported vagrancy."

<tu quoque>
"What a racist statement!"
"Byrd!"

<tu quoque/ad hom>
"Hillary had a private email system."
"Colin Powell, the famous WMD Cheney mouthpiece, also had a private email system."

The veracity of any of the statements is not important. It's how you apply them.

A tu quoque fallcy is an ad hominem fallacy. So, yeah.