Is there a logical fallacy in this situation? :
Person 1: This group is judgmental.
Person 2: Your saying the group is judgmental is judgmental.
I am not sure how to explain what appears off in this scenario. What is it called when people attempt to discredit the premise of a statement by using the statement against you, as is happening to Person 1 in the above scenario?
There isn't a logical fallacy per se; that is, if you're looking only at what's said—but, if we think about the implication of such a statement, there is one. The implication (in italics) goes something like this:
Person 1: This group is judgmental.
Person 2: You saying the group is judgmental is judgmental. Therefore, your hypocrisy detracts from your credibility.
I'd judge this an example of tu quoque ad hominem.
(As a sidenote: If you're asking this because you've engaged in a similar conversation, and you feel something is wrong, but don't know what to call it, I think you're better off describing what's wrong with this exchange directly. Saying "Hah-hah! You've committed the logical fallacy of ad hominem!" Is very rarely beneficial to your cause, and, anecdotally, I've noticed that having a list of named logical fallacies handy doesn't actually make one any better at... logic. Sometimes, it even makes one worse.)
A statement that defeats itself is called "self-defeating". For instance, the claim "All statements that contain the letter e are false" is self-defeating; it contains the letter e, so it is claiming that itself is false.
Is there a logical fallacy in this situation?
What you quote are two claims. Claims cannot be fallacious. Only arguments can be fallacious.
There are implied arguments here. The implied argument of "This group is judgmental" is "Being judgmental is bad, this group is judgmental, therefore this group is bad". This is valid logic, but arguably not sound.
The reply "Your saying the group is judgmental is judgmental" is responding to the implied argument. The implied argument is "You are saying that being judgmental is bad, but your statement is judgmental, so by your logic your own statement is bad". This relies on the further implied premise that all evaluations are judgmental. The term "judgmental" is generally understood to mean more than just than that. Furthermore, a statement being "bad" to say doesn't mean it's wrong.
If those defects are fixed, if a reply does explicitly assert that the first statement is making an argument, if the first statement is in fact making that argument, and if that argument contradicts the statement, then that would be a valid argument.
