User talk:Inquisitor Sasha/Self prejudice fallacy

Delete
Stupid, facile analysis of a non-existent phrase. Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 04:29, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It's poorly titled, but this sort of thing really does happen, especially with anti-feminist women (Sarah Palin, anyone?)  I think the problem is that the article focuses on this phrase rather than the more general problem of internalized oppression.  Wehpudicabok (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Best put in reverse racism, or in the specific articles we have about various kinds of prejudice. Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 13:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Wehpudicabok. If it needs to be retitled, than do so.  The logic is extremely real and common.  PSL doesn't give much explaination and possibly seems like some sort of personal vendetta.  –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 13:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. 20:15, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article at the moment, is a travesty. However, the topic is valid, and may actually prove useful when written in a more coherent manner. Brenden (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep – I agree with Brenden. It may be shit now, but that means we should fix it.  It's about a valid fallacy that people often rely on.  –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox)
 * Delete, or at least merge into tokenism or some such. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it should be stand alone, or at least heavily linked as in "this is part of this larger issue" to emphasize the fact that this is a fallacy that a lot of people end up internalizing. It's not really an argument that people directly make that often as much as it is a thought process.  I would say in sexism it's fairly common.  For example, the female misogynist on the Saloon Bar who was arguing against abortion and said she couldn't be sexist because she was a woman.  –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 21:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete or expand. as it stands, as others have pointed out, it is simplistic first grade "bigotry is bad, m'kay?"  [[Image:green mowse.png|25px]]Godot  The ablity to breath is such an overrated ability  17:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Rollback
I reverted the edits by the user who removed content and useful examples. –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 13:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You removed edits that improved a horrible article, as well as a "Delete" tag when a discussion on deletion is ongoing. Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 13:45, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I replaced it. Why is it horrible?  Because I wrote it?  Just to let you know, the content you deleted was all the stuff added by other users.  –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 13:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not about you. It's about the fact it's a shit article. Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 13:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * How, in detail? –Александр(а) Ehrenstein (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 13:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1. It's a term that nobody will ever use; 2. it duplicates a lot of what can be well-covered in reverse racism; 3. it attempts to explain complex specific phenomena with pat, over-simplified general answers; 4. the writing is shit. Faced with mysteries dark and vast/statements just seem vain at last. 14:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

This article still needs a title.
The concept may be marginally useful. The title renders the article useless as nobody will ever look for it. A title in the first person with giant variables makes no sense. It's also completely awkward. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 21:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed the delete tag since it seems good with the rename. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 21:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Good rename. –Александр(а) (Talk | Contribs | Ragebox) 21:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * (EC x 3) The text is also rubbish & none of the people saying "it's rubbish now but could be a useful article" have actually done anything to improve it in the six weeks it's been up for deletion. Just vaporize it.  21:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Fact-tags
In 24 hours I will remove any fact-tagged claim that has been in this article for more than a month. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 21:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Just delete the whole thing. 21:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Alright by me. But IE is going to be difficult about it. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.silverbrain.png 21:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)