A common rhetorical device here on the dope (probably other places too, but it’s here that I notice it and I bugs me) is to observe some partisan scandal or other, and then make a remark of the form “well, we all know if that if (person on the other side from the person involved in the actual scandal) did the same thing, then (you people I disagree with) would (have a fit/be strangely silent)”.
I DESPISE this argument. I think it should be added to the list of Godwin-esque things which, when used, are tantamount to admitting that you have no actual argument to make. Why? Many reasons:
(1) It’s unprovable. “We all know… what WOULD happen”. No we don’t. How could we? Even in the rare situations where there are two VERY similar situations, and the person making this argument takes the time to cite actual people actually doing the actual thing, that doesn’t prove anything, because the two situations are, by their very nature, not precisely identical.
(2) It’s unrefutable. Again, unless there’s been a nearly identical situation going the other way and there was a thread on it recently that can be found via search in which the person being attacked actually did participate, what can one say other the “uhh, yes I would”. It’s a cheap shot that appears to score points without any meaning at all.
(3) It’s condescending. Any time you say “we all know how you demo-publicans would react if X happened” you are basically saying “all you people are the same. You’re just a hive mind. A set of usual suspects. You are defined by your party affiliation (or whatever) and can not think for yourself”. What an incredibly rude and diminishing thing to say to someone.
(4) It’s irrelevant and distracting. If Joe Senator did something bad, and there’s a discussion of it, and how bad it is, then accusing Joe’s opponents on the board of being hypocrites (even if true) has nothing to do with whether Joe Senator did something bad or not.
(5) Due to all of the above things put together, this type of attack will never, or almost never, actually lead to any useful outcome of a debate or thread. I mean, if you bust this bad boy out, how is that going to lead, 10 or 20 posts later, to people having actually learned something or been convinced or enlightened? I mean, granted, that happens pretty damn rarely as it is. But we might as well keep the dream alive.
(6) It relates to the frequent board fallacy of associating the extremes of various partisan/ideological groups with the mainstreams. I mean, sure, there might be some democrats who are so rabidly fringey that they would, in fact, act in an entirely precisely partisan way at all times, always overlooking every sin of every democrat, and always viciously attacking every republican flaw, no matter how small (and vice versa). But that’s not the majority of either group. So, sure, some people might make the argument (or lack of argument) that you are talking about, but they won’t be most of the people who are reading your post.
(7) It’s an accusation of nothing. People don’t have a responsibility to be even-handed in what they complain about. If I’m a liberal democrat (I am), it is 100% reasonable and rational for me to attempt to publicize the flaws and foibles and scandals of those I oppose. By doing so, I am attempting to advance the interests of a political party whose agenda I agree with, and whose actions I support (note the “agree” and “support” there, not some form of lavish blind obedience). If at some point I start a thread about a corrupt Republican, and someone manages to prove with 100% metaphysical certitude that I wouldn’t have started the same thread about a corrupt Democrat, well, so what?
(8) Everyone is biased. It is absolutely 100% human nature to be more sympathetic to those you agree with and like. Now, I’d like to think that most dopers make an attempt to be intellectually honest, and that’s a value that we support and idealize around here. But, the fact of the matter is, if exactly the same scandal befalls Barack Obama (who I like) and GWBush (who I despise), I am more likely to want to find excuses and mitigating circumstances for Obama than for Bush. Does that make me a hypocrite? Well, to some degree, yes. But that’s called being human. We pretty much all do it. Sure, it’s worth pointing out and fighting against. But bringing it up and then acting all “oh, you guys are so two-faced! La la la I win the argument you suck” is just idiotic.