MaxTheVool:
I guess it’s entirely a matter of context. If someone starts a thread, and the purpose of the thread is to prove that MaxTheVool is a hypocrite, and they dig up two very similar partisan situations in which I have reacted totally differently, well, they got me, I’m a hypocrite. But if someone starts a thread about the evil thing that Joe Republican Senator just did, and I post in that thread, then responding to my post in that thread with an accusation of hypocrisy, no matter how well supported, is at best a distraction. (Although your point is well taken that it might be helpful to ME, assuming I’m intellectually honest. Thing is, posts of that sort almost always coming off as attempts to discredit or distract, directed at third parties, rather than attempts to inform and educate.)
So yes, it is logically entirely possible to give good evidence of hypocrisy by pointing out someone’s varying reactions to two incidents, but:
All of that of course is assuming that the reaction being pitted actually existed and was not an assumed you-would-say-X.
I think I can agree with every part of that. Specifically, I think you’re right that the when X did Y, someone said Z structure is less useful when considering a specific poster than when considering a third party (whose bias may actually be of broad public interest). When directed against another doper, it does run the risk of being an ad hominem attack.
Daniel