> After all, I had no right to chastise him for yelling when I was screaming at him myself. Maybe I had the temper problem, not him. I don’t know what I want t

> After all, I had no right to chastise him for yelling when I was screaming at him myself. Maybe I had the temper problem, not him. I don’t know what I want to call this fallacy. Maybe tit-for-tat fallacy. One person’s bad behavior doesn’t “annihilate” or vacate the other’s. They don't “cancel out”. The tactic is (reflexively) used to derail the interrogator and change subject. “Yes, it is true I am also verbally abusive but right now we're talking about your verbal abuse.” It's not that this line of reasoning works with the abuser but at least it's a reminder to oneself what's being attempted.