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

I'm certain that this thread title coud be applied to any topic, but it seems prevalent in politics, and in this section's threads.

It seems there are a few incidents over the last few years or so that have outraged Republican coservative pundits, and constituents alike. Yet when asked why they were not equally outraged when their team did very similar (or in some instances the same) things, the immediate (and maybe rightfuly so) defense is to shout "tu quoque!" and hand wave the question away. Some do indeed feel equal outrage and I appreciate the honesty.

So I'd like to know: What is the difference between "tu quoque" vs "selective partisan outrage"? How does one tell the difference?

One of them is easier to pronounce.

Selective outrage shows hypocrisy. A tu quoque takes the accusation of hypocrisy and extends it to a logically fallacious conclusion. Pointing out "selective outrage" or hypocrisy in others is not a logical fallacy and therefore not a tu quoque, but, depending upon the thread, it can be off-topic and an intentional derail (i.e. a Rule 11 breach). I think in most cases on the ISF, when posters are accused of tu quoque reasoning, they're really guilty of a Rule 11 breach and should be infracted accordingly.

sunmaster14 said:

Selective outrage shows hypocrisy. A tu quoque takes the accusation of hypocrisy and extends it to a logically fallacious conclusion. Pointing out "selective outrage" or hypocrisy in others is not a logical fallacy and therefore not a tu quoque, but, depending upon the thread, it can be off-topic and an intentional derail (i.e. a Rule 11 breach). I think in most cases on the ISF, when posters are accused of tu quoque reasoning, they're really guilty of a Rule 11 breach and should be infracted accordingly.

Click to expand...

Interesting. Where else should it be pointed out, and is it always off topic?

We'll let a mod weigh in on the forum rules aspect.

Furthering sunmaster14:

Tu quoque is the fallacy stating "It's not bad, because both sides do it". It's a fallacy because it ignores the possibility of "Both sides are wrong for doing it". It doesn't mean the behavior is excusable. To tell the difference between "Tu Quoque" and "Partisan Outrage Blindness", look at the conclusions: Is the arguer trying to make a claim about the original behavior or the pundit's outrage about the original behavior.

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.

GodMark2 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Understood.

I am not certain I understand the question. Do I correctly surmise that the op is asking why people on a skeptics site point out that fallacious reasoning is fallacious?

16.5 said:

I am not certain I understand the question. Do I correctly surmise that the op is asking why people on a skeptics site point out that fallacious reasoning is fallacious?

Click to expand...

When Party A does a deed that Party B deems egregious, many (though not all) followers of Party B display outrage. When reminded that Party B has done similar (or worse), and then asked if this same outrage occured then, the conversation is quickly dismissed via "tu quoque!" and nothing else is said, not even an answer to the question.

Asking if the same level of outrage occured is different than saying the other side does it too.

It sometimes looks like a lot like hypocrisy.

12AX7 said:

When Party A does a deed that Party B deems egregious, many (though not all) followers of Party B display outrage. When reminded that Party B has done similar (or worse), and then asked if this same outrage occured then, the conversation is quickly dismissed via "tu quoque!" and nothing else is said, not even an answer to the question.

Asking if the same level of outrage occured is different than saying the other side does it too.

It sometimes looks like a lot like hypocrisy.

Click to expand...

That is an awesome definition of tu quoque fallacy, also known appeal to hypocrisy. Awesome!

Also the way that you post it, it seems like a pure attacking the arguerer.

The ironic thing is that the appeal to hypocrisy is that it is a two way street. For example, there was a thread here about a subject where people claimed that it required impeachment! Now the same, or similar, or worse! thing happened, and those people have not weighed in, yet you didn't put those people on blast. Oh wait, is this thread limited to when "republicans" allegedly do it?

Ok.

16.5 said:

For example, there was a thread here about a subject where people claimed that it required impeachment! Now the same, or similar, or worse! thing happened, and those people have not weighed in, yet you didn't put those people on blast. Oh wait, is this thread limited to when "republicans" allegedly do it?

Ok.

Click to expand...

First, this thread isn't about any party or anyone specific, but if the shoes fit...

As to your "Gotcha!", I have a couple questions for you.

1. Did I opine in the current thread displaying outrage and calls for impeachment?

2. Did I opine in the old thread displaying outrage and calls for impeachment?

Lemme help you out.

1. No, I did not.
2. No, I did not.

I didn't weigh in with an opinion either way. Now, see, had I grabbed a pitchfork and a torch in one thread (or even started a new one) and remined silent (or dismissive if asked about my selective outrage exactly like you're doing now) in the other, then you'd have a point. You'd have a "Gotcha!".

But I didn't, so you don't.

I honestly don't know how to simplify this any further.

12AX7 said:

First, this thread isn't about any party or anyone specific, but if the shoes fit...

As to your "Gotcha!", I have a couple questions for you.

1. Did I opine in the current thread displaying outrage and calls for impeachment?

2. Did I opine in the old thread displaying outrage and calls for impeachment?

Lemme help you out.

1. No, I did not.
2. No, I did not.

I didn't weigh in with an opinion either way. Now, see, had I grabbed a pitchfork and a torch in one thread (or even started a new one) and remined silent (or dismissive if asked about my selective outrage exactly like you're doing now) in the other, then you'd have a point. You'd have a "Gotcha!".

But I didn't, so you don't.

I honestly don't know how to simplify this any further.

Click to expand...

Wait a second, somebody's throwing peaches again, have I missed something recently?

Mike! said:

Wait a second, somebody's throwing peaches again, have I missed something recently?

Click to expand...

Well, "imgrapefruitment" doesn't sound as good. Although "imkiwiment" is kinda catchy.

12AX7 said:

It seems there are a few incidents over the last few years or so that have outraged Republican coservative pundits, and constituents alike.

Click to expand...

12AX7 said:

First, this thread isn't about any party or anyone specific, but if the shoes fit...

Click to expand...

Ok.....

Great thread, see ya.

12AX7 said:

It seems there are a few incidents over the last few years or so that have outraged Republican coservative pundits, and constituents alike.

Click to expand...

Yes.

If we had an (R) POTUS I could say "It seems there are a few incidents over the last few years or so that have outraged liberal Democrat pundits and constituents alike. But since we have a (D) POTUS, almost all of the ire directed at him for the last 6 years is from the (R) side. A (D) has been POTUS since I've been a member here.

My comment stands.

12AX7 said:

First, this thread isn't about any party or anyone specific, but if the shoes fit...

Click to expand...

So does this one.

I'm not a fan of hypocrisy from either side.

16.5 said:

Ok.....

Great thread, see ya.

Click to expand...

Bye.

GodMark2 said:

Furthering sunmaster14:

Tu quoque is the fallacy stating "It's not bad, because both sides do it". It's a fallacy because it ignores the possibility of "Both sides are wrong for doing it". It doesn't mean the behavior is excusable. To tell the difference between "Tu Quoque" and "Partisan Outrage Blindness", look at the conclusions: Is the arguer trying to make a claim about the original behavior or the pundit's outrage about the original behavior.

Click to expand...

Indeed. Only the former claim is a tu quoque; the latter is attacking the arguer instead of the argument.

Checkmite said:

Indeed. Only the former claim is a tu quoque; the latter is attacking the arguer instead of the argument.

Click to expand...

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.

12AX7 said:

I'm certain that this thread title coud be applied to any topic, but it seems prevalent in politics, and in this section's threads.

It seems there are a few million incidents over the last few years or so that have outraged Republican coservative pundits, and constituents alike. Yet when asked why they were not equally outraged when their team did very similar (or in some instances the same) things, the immediate (and maybe rightfuly so) defense is to shout "tu quoque!" and hand wave the question away. Some do indeed feel equal outrage and I appreciate the honesty.

So I'd like to know: What is the difference between "tu quoque" vs "selective partisan outrage"? How does one tell the difference?

Click to expand...

0/ ftfy

1/ Your partisan tribalism is showing.

2/ If anyone ever shouted "tu quoque!" , I'd love to see the vid,

3/ Tu quoque fallacy is merely answering an argument with a claim that the arguer is hypocritical on the issue. Whether the hypocrisy accusation is true or not or whether there is any outrage is irrelevant. It's an invalid form of logical argument since, it does not address the original claim, but instead attempts to obfuscate and divert. It's a form of ad hominem fallacy in that it attempts to shift the issue to the hypocrisy of the person and off the actual issue.

Tu Quoque:
A: Tobacco smoking is bad for you and you should never do it.
B: Aha - but you are a smoker aren't you !
Whether claim B is true or false has no bearing on claim A.

Now lets examine your example:
RepPundit: I'm outraged at the awful acts by DemInChief.
SomeDem: Well why aren't you equally outraged about your guy doing the same ?

In this case SomeDem is actually committing the tu quoque fallacy by diverting the topic from the original topic and onto a charge of hypocrisy ! It's the opposite of the partisan point I think you were trying to make.

4/ Selective outrage is a bias, that demonstrates actual hypocrisy(or maybe ignorance), but not a logical error. For example posting about the evil stupidity of the other party while ignoring the comparable evil stupidity in your own party. (did you just do that 12AX7 ?)
====

The reason this stuff appears in politics regularly AND BY BOTH PARTIES is that political debate is only tangentially related to rational debate. It's about convincing ppl with appeals to emotion.

GodMark2 said:

Furthering sunmaster14:

Tu quoque is the fallacy stating "It's not bad, because both sides do it". It's a fallacy because it ignores the possibility of "Both sides are wrong for doing it". It doesn't mean the behavior is excusable.

Click to expand...

No, that's not tu quoque, more of an argumentum ad populam fallacy. Tu quoque is specifically about fallaciously rebutting a claim w/ a charge of hypocrisy against the person.

To tell the difference between "Tu Quoque" and "Partisan Outrage Blindness", look at the conclusions: Is the arguer trying to make a claim about the original behavior or the pundit's outrage about the original behavior

Click to expand...

Rebutting the other's outrage or emotional state is a logical error, some form of ad hominem, that still doesn't make it tu quoque. Any argument that aligns with "well look who's talking" (sarcasm) is tu quoque. Selective outrage is not a logical fallacy, tho' it is a demonstration of bias and hypocrisy and may depend on fallacious thinking.

I've come to the conclusion that there is a subset of people that simply don't understand the concept of hypocracy.

Click to expand...

Nor the spelling

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.

Click to expand...

I don't greatly disagree. This problem is exacerbated by the age of polarized politics we currently live in. It wasn't always so. Heck just look at the threads on this forum - aren't those "other party" people stupid, ignorant, despicable ... We live in an era of political intolerance that taints every discussion and makes rational discussion difficult, perhaps impossible.

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.

Click to expand...

And they may well be right! It's been a long time since either party has addressed the other w/o slander and brickbats.




======================

Interestingly there are examples of tu quoque that are not fallacious.
PoliticianA: I believe it's in the public interest to go forward with program X
Rebutal: Didn't you just purchase 10,000 shares of stock of the company implementing program X ?

Yes the rebuttal is a question of personal hypocrisy, but it goes to the issue of a conflict of interest which validly rebuts the first statement.

12AX7 said:

So I'd like to know: What is the difference between "tu quoque" vs "selective partisan outrage"? How does one tell the difference?

Click to expand...

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.

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."

From now on I'm going to refer them to this thread and this amazing answer:

GodMark2 said:

Furthering sunmaster14:

Tu quoque is the fallacy stating "It's not bad, because both sides do it". It's a fallacy because it ignores the possibility of "Both sides are wrong for doing it". It doesn't mean the behavior is excusable. To tell the difference between "Tu Quoque" and "Partisan Outrage Blindness", look at the conclusions: Is the arguer trying to make a claim about the original behavior or the pundit's outrage about the original behavior.

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.

Click to expand...

C_Felix said:

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."

From now on I'm going to refer them to this thread and this amazing answer:

Click to expand...

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."