I genuinely think Tu Quoque is misplaced by being called a fallacy, and I firmly believe that calling out someone's hypocrisy to their argument already shows - at the very least - a fragility to their stance, and can help to illustrate what about their argument is going amiss by using the individual's own experience and behavior to prove it.
Someone not doing X indeed doesn't say whether you should be doing X, but it stands ground that X has a flaw for adoption - and talking to someone that doesn't do it is a great way to examine why, and possibility use it to your argument.
> I genuinely think Tu Quoque is misplaced by being called a fallacy, and I firmly believe that calling out someone's hypocrisy to their argument already shows - at the very least - a fragility to their stance, and can help to illustrate what about their argument is going amiss
"they" have no "stance" or "argument", they're just the ones who happened to point out the problem. They themselves are irrelevant. They could strangle puppies for fun, and they could still point out the problem as well as if they donated both kidneys to child orphan strangers. They're just the person there at the time, pointing out the problem. It could have been anybody pointing out the problem, the problem is still a problem.
that's why tu quoque is a fallacy: attacking the person who pointed out the problem, doesn't resolve the problem, and doesn't seek to, either. It seeks to silence the person who pointed out the problem. Shooting the messenger is a related problem-solving anti-pattern, for similar reasons.
While valid, the problem being pointed out still requires a representative to do so, and I was just making the point that if the representative has experiences or behaviors that are inconsistent with the essence of the problem they're trying to address, it ought to be brought up. For an individual wearing a lanyard with the problem statement being, "there are too many lanyards in the world", you are well above your means to inquire on his participation within the problem firsthand, and how they're contributing to it (or lack thereof).
You are right that Tu Quoque is often used to silence the problem statement representative, but it shouldn't become a go-to card for individuals to claim when they're hypocrisy is pointed out (which I've seen, not saying it did here).
> While valid, the problem being pointed out still requires a representative to do so, and I was just making the point that if the representative has experiences or behaviors that are inconsistent with the essence of the problem they're trying to address, it ought to be brought up
this entire statement is the exact opposite of true: anyone can raise awareness of the problem regardless of who they are, it doesn't make them a "representative" of anything (just imagine them reading an anonymous comment card they pulled out of a box) and any inconsistency you see between them and the problem is irrelevant, and is a distraction if brought up
that is why tu quoque, what you are describing, is a fallacy
> For an individual wearing a lanyard with the problem statement being, "there are too many lanyards in the world", you are well above your means to inquire on his participation within the problem firsthand, and how they're contributing to it (or lack thereof).
you would be engaging in the logical fallacy of whataboutism, because your questioning of him doesn't address the problem, and is in fact counterproductive in solving the problem, because you are attacking an ally in solving the problem
this illustrates why tu quoque is a fallacy when trying to solve the problem
put another way, because their identity is irrelevant, a 100% equally valid question would be for him to ask you what are you are doing to solve the problem
the analogy is bad anyways, because in this real life topic, the whataboutism user is wrongly conflating two different actions, as well as ascribing actions to people who didn't do them. All the people who responded here pointing out that they don't, in fact, sell private data, were conveniently ignored by the original tu quoque perpetrator
Someone not doing X indeed doesn't say whether you should be doing X, but it stands ground that X has a flaw for adoption - and talking to someone that doesn't do it is a great way to examine why, and possibility use it to your argument.