One of the most frustrating forms of argument is the tu quoque fallacy - Latin for "you too." It's also called the hypocrisy fallacy, and it works like this: rather than respond to a criticism or accusation, the person being challenged simply accuses the other party of doing the same thing. The goal is not to refute the argument, but to deflect it. It's rhetorical judo.

Think of it this way: someone points out that you left your coffee mug on the server rack. Instead of acknowledging the issue, you snap back, "Well, you left your lunch in the switch cabinet last week!" Congratulations, you've just committed the tu quoque fallacy. You're not addressing the concern - you're just trying to turn it around.

One of the most iconic pop culture examples of this fallacy came from a drug awareness commercial in the 1980s. A father storms into his son's bedroom, furious after finding marijuana. "Where did you learn how to do this?" he demands. The kid fires back, "From you, Dad. I learned it from watching you!" It's a powerful emotional moment - but logically, it's a tu quoque. The kid isn't denying he did something wrong. He's just accusing his father of doing it first. It doesn't make it okay. It just shifts the focus, as if hypocrisy cancels out the original issue. It doesn't.

In IT support, this happens more often than we'd like to admit. A network admin gets called out for failing to document a major change. Rather than own the oversight, they say, "Oh please, like you've never skipped documentation!" It's meant to level the playing field, but in practice, it derails the conversation. Whether or not the accuser is a hypocrite is irrelevant. The original issue still stands.

In Access development, I've heard it too. I might suggest to a client, "You really shouldn't store calculated values directly in a table," and the reply is, "Well, Microsoft does it in some of their templates." That doesn't make it good practice. Just because someone else breaks the rules doesn't mean the rule is wrong - or that it's smart to keep breaking it. Pointing out someone else's mistake doesn't make your own approach valid. (1)

In some philosophical or moral debates, it's not uncommon to see someone dodge a challenge by pointing out that their critic has also fallen short. Instead of defending the belief or behavior on its own merit, the response becomes, "Well, you're no better." This kind of deflection doesn't actually address the argument. It just reframes the conversation around personal consistency, as if truth or ethics are only valid when delivered by someone flawless. But ideas should stand or fall on their own, regardless of who presents them. Invoking someone else's imperfections doesn't excuse the flaw in your own position - it just highlights how easy it is to avoid self-reflection.

And then, of course, there's Star Trek.

In Deep Space Nine, the episode For the Cause gives us one of the best examples. Commander Michael Eddington, a trusted Starfleet security officer, betrays the station and defects to the Maquis - a rogue group of settlers fighting against a peace treaty that ceded their colonies to the Cardassians. When Sisko confronts him, furious and betrayed, Eddington fires back with moral deflection: "You're no different than the Maquis. You're just doing what you think is right."

That's classic tu quoque. Eddington doesn't defend his betrayal. He doesn't justify his covert sabotage of Starfleet operations. Instead, he paints Sisko as just another man with his own agenda. But pointing out that Sisko believes he's doing the right thing doesn't absolve Eddington from the fact that he lied, sabotaged, and defected. The fallacy is meant to distract, not clarify.

Sisko, to his credit, doesn't take the bait. He doesn't bother defending his motives. He just starts hunting Eddington down. And when he finally catches him? Let's just say it involves a biogenic weapon and a strong message about not playing games with a Starfleet Captain.

So the next time someone says, "Well, you do it too," stop and check whether they're actually responding to your point - or just dodging it.

LLAP
RR

(1) And as I've pointed out in many of my videos, sometimes there are exceptions for every rule, like storing calculated values in tables. If your goal is to speed up performance of reports that take forever, that's one way to do it.