Returning to logical fallacies again, argumentum ad hominem (commonly shortened to ad hominem) is a Latin phrase meaning ‘to the person’ — in short, attacking the person not the argument or claim that they’re making. It can be done abusively, such as insulting the person’s background or characteristics. 

For example, if a journalist did a report on the situation of homeless people in the inner city and proposed that there should be better measures to help those in need. Let’s say a politician responded that the journalist looks like they’ve never been without a roof over their head in their life, and therefore has no right to adequately report on the situation. By attacking the journalist, it’s irrelevant to the research she did in compiling the report, and attempts to dismiss her claim by drawing on her life experiences in comparison to the situation faced by those in need.

Tu quoque is a similar kind of fallacy that might not be as well known as ad hominem — it’s the ‘yeah, well, you too’ fallacy. ‘ This is when a claim is challenged because the person making an argument is guilty of inconsistency regarding their claim; such as saying that eating meat is cruel to animals and shouldn’t be done, while they are feeding their cat factory-farmed meat.

While being inconsistent is certainly something that can be criticised, you have to be sure that it’s relevant to the argument you’re making. Do note that there’s a tendency of people to claim things are a fallacy because they ‘don’t like it’.

Saying that someone is doing an ad hominem attack because you don’t like the fact that they are saying something you don’t agree with — isn’t the same as “shifting attention from the point in question to some non-relevant aspect of the person making it”.