The pattern:

  • When specific members of the Other Group display reprehensible behavior, they are cited as evidence that the Other Group as a whole is reprehensible.

  • When specific members of My Group display reprehensible behavior, they are dismissed as outliers who do not represent My Group as a whole.

The second part is clearly the No True Scotsman fallacy, and the first one is just a basic generalization. I was wondering if there was a name for this specific (and very frequently used) combination.

  • 2
    A lot of people think anytime someone says, "he's not a true X", then they are committing the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, but that's not the case. The pivotal point of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy is that there is a universally acknowledge criterion for calling someone a Scotsman, and the person committing the fallacy is rejecting that criterion because it is inconvenient for his position. When the criteria for membership in a group are vague and ill-defined, then the fact that you think someone is an X and the other person disagrees is not a sign of a fallacy. Aug 3, 2021 at 19:08
  • I don't think the behavior you describe is a fallacy; it's simple hypocrisy. Aug 3, 2021 at 19:09

2 Answers 2


Part 1 seems to be a 'Fallacy of Composition', defined by logicallfallacious.com as "Inferring that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole".

I'm not aware of any informal names for combined fallacies. The good news is, you have scope to invent one.


This is part of in-group favoritism/out-group negativity. Specifically it is the ultimate attribution error.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.