A bard walks in the Breakthrough Bar. While he waits for his Transgmoriffied White Russian, he eavesdrops one particular chit chat led by a cornucopian chemist, who explains how those against GRRROWTH are just a bunch of religious zealots. The chemist follows up with:
Oddly enough Degrowthers don’t even practice what they preach. They are “more equal than others” as Orwell put it .
The bard joins the conversation and interjects that the most effective short-term measure might very well be to reduce energy use, not simply to build more nuclear power stations . The chemist asks for specifics, which sounds fair enough, but then switches on attack mode:
I would love to read the work of a Degrowth representative who did not owe their continued employment to the public purse . It is very easy to call for change when you are being paid from the public purse and look forward to a publicly financed pension .
This criticism did not appear very factual to the bard . The exchange continued for a while and implicated a squirrel chaser who shall remain unnamed for the moment . The story does not end there (see  for the whole ClimateBall ™ episode), but this fragment suffices to illustrate what I often call (to AT’s wonderment) a tu quoque.
Latin lovers  might recognize that expression: it means “you too,” a response that any parent of multiple children hears a few times a day. It comes in various forms, forms to be explored in the comments below. Critical thinking professors usually repudiate tu quoques as fallacious, if only because they carry a personalized content. Contemporary argumentation theory disputes this categorical judgment, as it may be possible to find rhetorical situations where words and deeds are interconnected by relevance .
Nevertheless, our candid chemist’s cases fizzle. Let’s see two reasons why.
* * *
First, the expressions “degrowthers” and “Degrowth representative” refer to two unindentified targets. The first one may contain less straw  than the second, because it would be possible (at least in principle) for the chemist to identify what is degrowthing, what is a degrowther, and how degrowthers degrow. Yet the attack comes from nowhere and deflects from the claim the bard offered to defend. The second one can’t even be patched: it burdens the bard with the irrelevant task of having to defend nameless talking heads. This last argument fails because the bard hasn’t appealed to any authority and clearly indicated his willingness to discuss the claim on its own merit.
Second, GRRROWTH processes inhabit the realm of collective action, just like the free rider problem  . Decisions on how to implement them ain’t about me, you, or anyone in particular. Me? We! 
To make our candid chemist realize the suboptimality of this kind of priviledge probing, next time you meet him, enquire when he’ll move Downtown Vancouver, if his nuclear kitchen stove works well, and what he’d think of the project to “roundup” all the science .
Audits never end. In lieu of an end, I’ll leave a video right beneath. It exhibits a dialogue based on an usual example of a tu quoque, where a tobacco smoker warns his adolescent that smoking kills: