Arguments from hypocrisy can legitimately target a number of features of a speaker’s case. They may show that a proposal is really impractical, or they may show that things are more complicated than the speaker’s pronouncements make it seem. Or they, in ad hominem fashion, may show that the speaker lacks the ethotic standing (has a moral right) to lecture us about X, Y, or Z. But they usually are irrelevant — that’s why they have a name for the fallacy, the tu quoque.
One, I think uncontroversial, constraint on these (even fallacious) versions of arguments from inconsistency/hypocrisy is that the two events must be actually inconsistent. Otherwise, no hypocrisy. Surely, an argument from hypocrisy needs for there to be hypocrisy, first.
Enter Jerome Hudson over at Breitbart with his clearly newsworthy report on Matt Damon’s apparent hypocrisy: