Part 4.2 of the Critical Thinking Series (CTS): The Fallacies
aka: hypocrisy
Definition
Ad hominem means “to the person” in Latin. This often takes the form of a counter-argument that attacks some aspect of the person, such as their character, intentions, confidence, appearance, ethnicity, etc… when that aspect does not have any relevance to the debate.
Tu quoque means “you also” in Latin. This fallacy/tactic is a written, uttered or implied statement that (often) counter-attacks by claiming (justly or not) that another person is (also) guilty of hypocritical behavior and that alleged hypocrisy is a reason to dismiss the accuracy/relevance of the claim. Very often, that “other person” the person claims of being a hypocrite is the other debater. It is exceptionally common. Here is how it works:
person 1:
X leads to outcome Y.
Y is bad.
Therefore, X is bad.
person 2:
Person 1 engages in behavior X,
Person 1 is a hypocrite
Therefore, X is irrelevant
—–or—–
person 1:
X leads to Y.
Y is bad.
Person 2 does X
Therefore, person 2 does bad behavior.
Person 2 (or a third party speaking of person 2)
Person 1 does behavior X
Person 1 is a hypocrite
Therefore X is irrelevant
In each case here, even if person 1 is a hypocrite, that (alone) doesn’t make X irrelevant. Hypocritical accusations are frustrating and it can be wise to point out the hypocrisy in many instances. But claiming (overtly or implicitly) that the hypocrisy makes X irrelevant is fallacious.
Caveats
Person 1 can be committing an ad hominem themselves if accusation X is not relevant to the topic of debate. Even in this case, countering with a “you too” argument is still a fallacy. Yes, X is irrelevant to the topic, but it is not irrelevant because person A is a hypocrite. But if the counter merely points out the hypocrisy and shifts back to the topic, then no fallacy would be committed.
“You too” can be a sort of RED HERRING if it is used to shift the attention rather than dismissing the accuracy/relevance of the claim.
Example:
D. Liver: Look, you can’t just go around yelling “I smell bacon” every time a cop is within ear-shot on the road. The cop may find a reason to stop us and give us a ticket. Please don’t do that, especially when I’m driving. Keep the window rolled up and your mouth shut!
The “bro douche” known as “Buster Hyman”: F–K the pigs, bro You did the same thing back in the 10th grade! You’re a hypocrite so I don’t have a listen to you.
Example as a red-herring tactic:
The bro douche, “Buster Hyman”: Bro, didn’t you did that back in the 10th grade?
Here, this “you too” reply takes the form of a red herring tactic more than “you too” fallacy because the conclusion is not refuted. The topic is merely changed with a distraction as a tactical maneuver.
Non-example:
The bro douche, “Buster Hyman”: You do know you did that back in the 10th grade, right? So you aren’t fully innocent in this either, bro. But I hear you, bro. I see why it isn’t a good idea. I just get so riled up when I see a cop ever since they gave me that bogus ticket last year. I’ll control myself next time, bro.
Not a fallacy. Buster reminded D. Liver of a similar flaw (albeit unnecessarily), but Buster brought the discussion back on topic.
Non-example:
Chris Coe: Senator Cam Paye voted against bill X because out of concerns of overspending. I noticed he has only cited this reason for bills from the opposing party. I support getting the budget under control, but not via hypocritical reasoning.
Third-party example (with a mixture of fallacies):
Harden Thicke: Can you believe senator Holly McRell sexually assaulted her intern? They may release video during a trial. If she’s guilty, I don’t think I can vote for someone that doesn’t respect people like that.
Hugh Jass: Ugh! Come on, Harden! Like her opponent, Mr. Jack Pott is soooo innocent?!. He gets lap dances at the strip club all the time! He’s such a hypocrite every time he talks about the senator’s alleged assault.
Here, Hugh Jass and Harden Thicke are talking about other people, making this a third party example. Hugh’s reply has overlap with a few different fallacies. His “you too” reply compares a very different act. Unless something fishy is going down at the strip club, a lap dance is a mutually agreed arrangement: physical entertainment for monetary exchange. This is very different from sexually assaulting someone. So this is FALSE EQUIVALENCE. But what about the rest? It is debatable if the rest of the reply is more of a RED HERRING or more of a “you too” fallacy. The conclusion “therefore the sexual assault is irrelevant” is not overtly stated, so it could be argued this is more of a distraction tactic than a fallacy. But it could be argued that such a conclusion is implied here. Regardless, the reply is not sound reasoning.
How to avoid looking like a hypocrite and keeping credibility intact
If you are going to accuse a person of a fault and flaw it is very possible that another person may lash out you. Granted, the “you too” argument is a fallacy, but if the audience sees you as a hypocrite or as a person espousing a “holier than thou” position, then you may very likely lose credibility and audience connection. That would make getting your point across much more difficult. Admitting to similar flaws can go a long way to keeping your credibility intact. Also, humanizing the fault/flaw (without dismissing importance) can go a long way to help to minimize the potential of the other person from steering the discussion away in other directions.
How to avoid committing this fallacy
The best thing is to be cognizant of your emotions and maintain discipline. We’re human, and we often do not like having our faults presented to us, especially if the other person is a hypocrite and/or uses snooty rhetoric. Remember that neither snooty words or hypocrisy makes the fault/flaw irrelevant. You can address the hypocrisy without committing the fallacy.
Tips for responding
Prevention is the best strategy (see how to avoid looking like a hypocrite above). But we cannot possibly employ perfect tact every time, nor will excellent tact always be enough. But in general, unless the accusation is something exceptionally egregious, it is wise to humanize the flaw and show humility to some degree.
Concede to the flaw, get back on track. Maybe, you forgot about that one time you committed X. If you did partake in the flaw, admit it. The audience and that person you’re arguing with are human too. They will be hung up on that counter-accusation and may not listen to you further if you don’t address it.
Example: Ah, I forgot all about that time I shot with piss-poor accuracy on the range. My point is that your aim is inaccurate because you haven’t been practicing. I’m sure even the greatest marksmen have bad days, but you consistently shoot badly. You can’t expect to get better if you don’t practice.
Concede to a similar flaw, get back on track. Perhaps the person is claiming you did X but you never really did. This person is upset, their ego is damaged, and they are embarrassed. They cannot save face, so they are doing the next best thing: don’t look as bad relative to you. Give them enough flexibility to turn back to the topic at hand.
Heidi Claire: Iona, I heard you drove home drunk the other night. Why did you do that?
Iona Stonhouse: Like you’ve never gotten drunk before! Don’t’ give me that hypocritical crap!
Heidi Claire: But, I never drove drunk. I’ve gotten excessively drunk and made an ass of myself several times. Hell, there were a couple of times I was the “downer” of the party. But none of this makes driving drunk acceptable.
Defend, get back on track. Perhaps the person is counter accusing with something that is not true or equivalent. I
Holly Day: Jack, we cannot afford to go the monster truck rally. It’ unnecessary, and we need to that money for expenses.
Jack Tupp: But you bought wine-coolers last week! Were those necessary?
Holly Day: Jack, I the monster truck rally is $85. My drinks were $10. Plus, we had a surprise expense come up the other day. We cannot afford to spend $85 right now.
Validate the larger issue. After getting back on track, address the larger problem. This can take a bit more thought, tact, and time, but it can also increase the odds your opponent will become more reasonable, or maybe even agree with you. So I’ll show this continuing form three examples from above.
Example:
Holly Day (finishing her response, continues): I’m sorry we cannot afford this. You deserve to have a good time too. We may not be able to afford the truck rally, but we can afford for you to spend $10 for yourself very soon.
Holly recognized the larger issue is the unfairness. She validated it and provided a solution.
Example:
consider the exchange between Harden Thicke and Hugh Jass above in the “third party” example about the senator that may have sexually assaulted her intern.
Harden Thicke: Hugh, a lap dance and a sexual assault aren’t equivalent in this context. You may find strip clubs repugnant, and I can understand why. But they are not the same thing. One act is mutually agreed upon, the other is not. I want to assure you that you’re encouraged to vote for whoever you want, like everyone else. But to get back on topic, public officials committing offenses like sexual assault (especially on our dime) is a valid concern for voters. Of course, I know the senator hasn’t been tried yet and that you support her in many positions. I am not suggesting she is, in fact, guilty; nor am I saying her positions on some issues are awful. All I’m saying here is if evidence comes to light that she did sexually assault her intern, it is reasonable to take this into consideration and not vote for her. And yes, I do have to take into consideration that her opponent is quite persistent about her guilt without giving any evidence for it yet. I prefer (and wish) campaigns would focus on evidence and not smearing conjecture. But if you support the senator and want her to remain in office, it might be a wiser move if you focused on the necessity for evidence, which is a something I agree with. You may rally more sympathy and support using that tactic. But if evidence comes to light that the senator is guilty, I cannot in good conscious vote for her in that case. But of course, how you navigate this is up to you, and I hope you to at least entertain that idea if that happens.
Harden addressed several potential larger issues that may have spurred Hugh’s fallacious response. 1) potential distaste for strip clubs. 2) Liking the senator’s policies. 3) Frustration about a potential unfounded smear campaign. 4) The frustration of being told to vote a certain way. Harden did this in a way that tactfully addressed Hugh’s potential frustrations, without detracting from his own position. This increases the odds that the discussion can move forward in am a meaningful way.
Example:
Heidi Claire (continuing from the drunk driving example above): I love you and do not want to see you get yourself and other people hurt or possibly killed. I wasn’t able to stop you because I wasn’t there the other night, and I don’t want to see that sort of tragedy. It would devastate me, as I’m sure it would devastate you. Neither of us is perfect. But if we don’t look out for each other, and help each other when we’re about to mess up, who will? If I ever try to drive drunk, I hope you stop me by any means necessary, no matter how angry I get, as I will do for you.
After getting back on track, Heidi addresses the larger concern that Iona might feel personally judged and being singled out. Heidi shows that the same rule applies to her, that she truly cares, and is being pragmatic.
Be sure to like comment and share
Use the menu at the top to navigate to other articles.
Did you love it and want to help support Sgt Scholar? Patrons of Sgt Scholar enjoy benefits such as early access to articles, helping decide the topics of coming articles and more. Click here to support Sgt Scholar: https://www.patreon.com/sgtscholar
Sgt Scholar 
1 Comment