Stupid Politics: Something that unnecessarily grinds my gears and I just want to talk about

 Before I mention the problem, I'm fully aware of how stupid it is that this annoys me, because I'm (presumably) not the target of these types of arguments, and that due to its character limits, Twitter is not the ideal way to make them and means that in the name of brevity people leave out the core argument. I'm not even sure that my logic is really sound, but nonetheless, every time I see this type of argument, it drives me insane.  I shall call it the Hypocrisy Paradox, which once again I am aware is kind of an innaccurate name because I'm not sure it's really a paradox, but Appeal to Hypocrisy, which would probably be more a more accurate summation of this logical habit, is already taken by Tu Quoque, which is more ad hominem and a bit different from this (although not altogether different).

I'm talking about arguments like this:

The basic argument is this:

1. You (or "these people" in this tweet) previously said that it was OK that Colin Kaepernick was blacklisted by the NFL. 
   Anyone reading this post (however unlikely) thinking that that was not the case should recall that Dan Orlovsky continued to play for 10 years after going winless in 2008, and in 2017 signed a contract with the Rams (i.e. Dan Orlovsky, among others, was much worse than Kaepernick, but still got a job in the NFL). Kaepernick would have been a fine backup for any team, though I will concede that he may have asked for a higher contract than typical for a backup due to a couple of good seasons on the 49ers.
2. You are now upset about Donald Trump being banned from Twitter in the wake of years of belligerent behavior that frequently amounted to implicitly calling for violence.
3. Therefore, your stance on Kaepernick was hypocritical and not based on your belief that private companies should be able to make decisions based on their political values, but instead were due to racism or your own personal political views.

This is fair, but it's the opposite consideration that annoys me, primarily because the people making these arguments are always on my side with these issues, and I feel like their arguments are fallacious and make me look bad by association.  Also, even though I am explicitly not the target of this tweet, as soon as I read it I apply it to myself because I would never want anyone to follow any rules that I would not follow myself, the rules being logic in this case.  Many of these tweets are also written in the second person, and I therefore read them as if directed toward myself even though they aren't really.

Consider the following points implied by the logic in the above tweet:

1. I thought it was unfair for NFL teams to blacklist Colin Kaepernick for respectfully expressing his opinion about an important issue that was not being addressed in society (police violence against people of color and the lack of consequences for it).
2. I think it was OK for Twitter to ban Donald Trump for being a constant negative influence on society through his angry tirades on their platform.
3. Therefore, I am a hypocrite for thinking private companies can censor Donald Trump but that they should not have blacklisted Colin Kaepernick.

What is unspoken in this tweet is that Donald Trump was inciting violence and Colin Kaepernick did not, and I am 100% certain the author would agree with that, but that does not mean that the second set of points does not still follow from this tweet.  Indeed, someone who disagrees with me might well argue that the ability to play football in the NFL does not constitute free speech while the ability to express yourself using publicly on the Internet is, or should be.  The weight of these mitigating circumstances might make one or the other situation morally acceptable, but fall outside the implicit argument of this tweet that one should either consider all censorship and blacklisting acceptable, or none at all, which is a false choice.

This is sort of a subset of the Tu Quoque logical fallacy, in which you point out someone's past actions (in this case, their past speech) to show that it's hypocritical for them to make a certain statement, even if that statement may be true.  Here's a Wikipedia article that has some simple examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

The frequency with which I see this argument, only ever used by people that I agree with, drives me absolutely nuts, and every time I need to remind myself that it's not meant for me to consider because I already agree with them, but the logic honestly just seems so dumb to me that I can't help but obsess a bit over it.

It's risen to a peak this week (January 2021) as people express the following feelings, which I have seen all over the place:

If you were OK with police violence this summer during the BLM protests, why do you now object to police violence toward people storming the Capitol building to try and undo a democratic election?

Similarly

If police were willing to beat peaceful BLM protestors, why do they now hesitate to use police violence against these right-wing protestors who are also damaging public property?

Since I did not think the police should have used police violence this summer, and frankly were making everything worse than it should have been, the following would seem to be implied:

1. I was not OK with police violence this summer
2. I think it's reasonable to expect police to use physical force to keep people from ransacking a building where people work, thereby threatening their safety and lives, more so than it is reasonable to condone the use of physical force upon people protesting in the streets, which are an area open to the public, though I will add that if I had to choose between people looting a small shop owner or a large US government building, I'd rather they loot the government office, which has means to recoup their stolen and damaged property.
   I'm also not really happy with the fact that a woman was killed this week by the police, although I think the use of force in this case was much more reasonable than the many people (particularly people of color) killed by police for no justifiable reason.  I certainly, however, would not call it "good" that a person was killed by police.
3. Since I object to all police violence, that is why I have reservations about it in this instance (i.e. I think that it was justified but do not wish that there had been more violence). Similarly, though I'm not naïve enough to really believe this is true, one would hope that maybe the police had learned that police brutality is bad and therefore abstained from it in this case.  I doubt that that is true, but that does not mean that I think they should use violence in this case because they already did over the summer, and so it's only fair that they do it again to the other side to balance things out.  

If I were God, I would go back in time and make it so that there was no police violence against BLM protesters, and also not have it now until truly necessary.  I would also not have anyone lose their lives, although, let me be clear, people should face just punishments for the heinous acts that they committed in attempted to contradict the will of the people.  I do, however, maintain that eye for an eye is not something that I support, and seeing people on the left support (like actually support - not just excuse) police brutality in this case strikes me as (hah) a bit hypocritical.