Rhetorical Trick/Fallacy of Manipulation and Sophistry....

So, there is a rhetorical trick, that I am trying to name or identify, and I think it could be a fallacy as well. It’s essentially what is known as psychological projection, where you project your own thoughts and feelings into others. Oftentimes, they are negative thoughts and feelings. For example, when a thief or criminal accuses others of being thieves and criminals, and the accuser denies the same quality about themselves. This could perhaps also be a form of what is generally called “gaslighting,” trying to get someone to doubt their own reality by using rhetorical and psychological tricks. 

However, the rhetorical trick that I am getting at is a specific form of this gaslighting perhaps, where you accuse the other party of what you yourself are guilty of before the party has a change to call you out on your behavior. If the gaslighter says “stop gaslighting me” and the target of the actual gaslighting responds with “I’m not gaslighting, you are the one who is gaslighting!”.....it makes it look like the victim of psychological abuse is just saying “I know you are, but what am I?” A weak comeback, even if a true one, but then again, logic doesn’t always work when dealing with unreasonable.

Such arguments are usually emotionally charged and are often too convoluted, so it’s kind of difficult to come up with a syllogistic example. But one thing that comes to mind is the fairly recent rhetorical trick called “kafkatrapping.” Kafkatrapping is normally used in debates about “ists, isms, and phobes” where someone is accused of being a bigot, and they deny their bigotry, their denial is seen as proof of their bigotry. Accusing someone in such a manner is not falsifiable, which is why it’s effective, but I’d also argue the accusation can’t be proven true either, hence the “trap.” But the example I think of is say, someone accuses you of being a thief, you deny it, but that is exactly what a thief would say, so you must be a thief! Is there another name for this fallacy? 

One example I can think of would be when someone is psychologically abusive to their spouse, and tries to control them, induce guilt into them, make them doubt themselves, their own identity, and their own reality. This is indeed gaslighting. But, the rhetorical trick I am referring to, is one the abuser does all of those things, and then accuses the other person of gaslighting. So, when the victim defends themselves and says “no, you are the one who is doing that!” their rebuttal looks weak because the abuser has already weakened the power of the word “gaslighting” by using it first. In other words, the abuser has disarmed the defense of the abused by anticipating the accusation.

One can see this often in the modern world. Maybe an example off the top of my head could be something like when someone tries to silence or shut down another person because they don’t like their opinions on something, or they said something that offended them. Because of the offense, they think the offender should not have free speech. Then, when the offended party gets called out in their censorious behavior, they say “you just hate anyone who disagrees with you!” The censorious individual in this scenario seems to be the one with the problem of hating differing viewpoints, yet cunningly accuses others of the same.

Perhaps we could call this “projective gaslighting” as opposed to plain ol’ gaslighting, as the user of this technique is seemingly engaging in projection. That’s what I’ve been calling this phenomenon when I bring it up. It could be a fallacy because the accuser fails to logically find the same behavior in themselves. Granted, the user of this fallacy is likely cunning about it and knows, using it as a rhetorical trick, but I’d still call it a fallacy because not everyone has situational awareness. 

Sorry if this was a bit of a ramble, but it’s just something I noticed and was wondering if there could be an official fallacy for this. Special pleading comes to mind, but I feel this is a bit more specific, as special pleading is essentially “it’s ok when my side does it!” whereas here, I am describing a sophistic and manipulative tactic. 

I hope this makes sense. Any inputs and thoughts are appreciated.

-LM

Since gaslighting is named for a movie exhibiting it, I'd say its not useful for any sort of argument construct. It just takes too long, 

The nearest of the multiple situations you described seem to me to fit the fallacy of tu quoque (I couldn't find a stamp for it) and the use of it as a mode of attack is a mainstay of Rules for Radicals by Saul Alinsky, he may have picked up from Goebbels: "accuse your opponents of the behaviors you're using"

There were a couple of situations you presented in which the denial by the accused was considered as evidence for his guilt, a technique of attempting to reverse the order of argument rife with non-sequitur, circular reasoning, and to me, appropriately rejected out of hand.  The accuser who uses this sort of argument does not want a discussion, and my personal response is to grant his wish.

Yes, this form of rhetorical device appears to be gaining popularity. I've noticed it deployed, increasingly, since around 2015. Based on my own observations, I believe the rhetorical device is a form of "poisoning the well" fallacy.

"Accusing the other party of what you yourself are guilty of before the party has a chance to call you out on your behavior."

I found this website after searching for an answer to this exact question i.e. is there a name for this unethical tactic in discourse?

With some fallacies and errors in logic it's not easy to see an intention. Imo, this one is hard to explain way, for those who may be faint of heart.

Did you manage to find an answer, yet?