Misinformation / Disinformation

"You do it too" is a fallacy, and also sometimes a legitimate observation about standards being applied selectively.

The fallacy: the speaker's inconsistency does not make their claim false. A doctor who smokes is still right about smoking.

The legitimate version: when someone proposes a rule and exempts themselves, the exemption is evidence about the rule's purpose.

These get conflated constantly, in both directions. People dismiss real hypocrisy as "just tu quoque", and people deflect substantive criticism by pointing at the critic.

The separation I use: does the accusation address the claim, or the person's standing to make it? Standing is a legitimate topic when the person is asking for trust. It is irrelevant when they are presenting evidence.

Interested in whether people here treat this as one phenomenon or two. I keep going back and forth.