I see this a lot in political “discourse” on the web. Someone is complaining about whatever the issue of the day is, and someone on the opposite side of the aisle will retort, “the politician I assume you voted for did it, too,” rather than debating the issue on its merits alone.
Does this fallacy have a name? It sounds very similar to “tu quoque,” but it doesn’t quite seem to fit with that definition.
Sounds exactly like tu quoque to me.
Strictly speaking, it’s not tu quoque, since it’s not “you do it”, but “politician you agree with does it”. It still seems close enough, to me.
tu quoque by proxy, let’s popularize it
the phrase, not the practice
It sounds like a version of the Straw Man fallacy, since the person is assuming (usually based on nothing more than their own predjudices) that their opponent is a supporter of some particular politican and/or that person’s actions.
ie:
Person A: “I oppose drone strikes against people in the Middle East”
Person B: “YOU SUPPORTED THEM WHEN GEORGE BUSH DID IT, BUT NOW THAT ITS OBAMA DOING IT YOU OPPOSE IT, YOU FILTHY HYPOCRIT !!! :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:”
99% of the time, Person A has said no such thing, and it’s pure assumption on Person B’s part.
Tu quoque is a form of ad hominem, and appropriate here since it means literally “You too”. However, since there is no direct connection between voting for someone and the actions of that candidate it could just be considered simple ad hominem.
No, it’s a perfectly good (bad?) tu quoque. Your side does the same thing.
Hey, Joe. Look at those Republicans, always getting caught with their pants down. How can you vote for them?
So what, Mack. Those Democrats you voted for are no better. Remember Clinton?
How would we make it sound Latin enough?
How about vos quoque?
Sounds like childish argument to me, like he is trying to say that two wrongs make a right. Not sure how that would translate into Latin. Perhaps Otway ongswray akemay away ightray.
Its just another way of saying, “Don’t be a hypocrite.”
While I’ve seen just this sort of post in Great Debates, I don’t feel like it’s a tu quoque so much as an advance warning to the speaker for how they need to broach the subject.
I believe the argument is that the person’s position is equivalent to a fad, like if a someone comes up to me and starts quipping how X band has created an instant classic, I don’t feel a strong need to check out that band when I know that he was saying the exact same thing about a different band just a month ago, and the month before that, etc. It’s easier to point out to them that they’re acting in a manner that’s going to require them to show a bit more evidence of genuine interest before it’s worth the time and effort to go along with their statements.
Following up, it looks like it would be: