Talk:And you are lynching Negroes/Archive 5

Tu quoque
IMO this is not a 'tu quoque' type. This type involves reference to the same subject or statement. For example:
 * Claim: Russians are stupid.
 * Counterclaim: But Americans are even stupider. All their brains are from constant stream of hi-tech immigrants.

I'd rather describe it as a non-consequitur statement, kind of Polish day: "Dziad o niebie, a baba o chlebie" (Grandpa is about heavens, and Grandma is about bread). In the example of the article one speaks about price of car and another is about lynching negroes. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It's tu quoque, "the appeal to hypocrisy." --evrik (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Once again, accusation of hypocrisy involves accusation the opponent of the same sin, which is not always the case in our case, as the very article shows. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Another close candidate is Two wrongs make a right: "a wrongful action is not a morally appropriate way to correct or cancel a previous wrongful action." Staszek Lem (talk) 03:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * two wrongs don't make a right is a proverb used to rebuke or renounce wrongful conduct as a response to another's transgression. That could be said here. You could give it a try. --evrik (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I am trying to give it a try. The problem is that I cannot find good sources which give the classification of this figure. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

And IMO the best fit is ignoratio elenchi "missing the point": the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid, but fails nonetheless to address the issue in question.. In our case, yes, negroes are lynched, but this does not change the fact that Russians are wage slaves. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * missing the point is based on ignorance. This is more willful. --evrik (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * One should not infer the meaning of the term from its literal translation (is there a named logical fallacy for this? :-). This term is used for "missing the point", whether from ignorance or deliberately. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

In modern Polish colloquial the phrase is used without any direct association to Soviets or even to politics. It is used in situations of both interpretations tu quoque and "missing the point". So for the purposes of this article we have to distinguish two issues: Keeping in mind that usage/meaning often change over time. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * how it was interpreted in original setting
 * what is the modern usage