RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Draft:Internalized bigotry

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Draft:Internalized bigotry | Result: moved to creator’s userspace[edit]

Draft:Internalized bigotry (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)


  1. Internalized discrimination currently redirects to Uncle Tom, which despite its name is less offensive than this draft. All it is is a collection of examples, which were removed from Uncle Tom with good reason.
    @MarioSuperstar77 and I had a disagreement a month ago, which was clearly part of the motivation for this draft’s creation. I have no interest in starting that argument again, but don’t want to see it enter mainspace. Christopher (talk) 10:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    Chris, you're doing it again, you are bullying me for no reason just because I made an article you didn't want. The content of this has nothing to do with what you're mentioning, it is meant to cover other forms of discrimination. The article you're mentioning "Internalized discrimination" is a redirect for uncle tom, an article that covers a form of internalized racism rampant within the United States, but then there are other forms of bigotry that aren't covered anywhere on RW. Since it is a draft, you could improve it, this is why it is on draftspace in the first place. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 10:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    I’m not bullying you, I’m nominating an article I think should be deleted for deletion. Uncle Tom used to “cover” those other forms of bigotry the same way this draft does, with a list of examples. Those examples were rightfully removed. This draft has almost no content other than the examples, and exists because of a saloon bar argument you had a month ago. Christopher (talk) 10:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    They were removed because they had nothing to do on that article. It was an article about racism, not sexism. I will reiterate what I said earlier, this is a draft, this is unfinished. This is not the same issue as that BreadTube article that was lingering on mainspace for several years and was nothing more than a list of examples too. I can say for a fact that you wanted to pick a fight with me while I was minding my own business because you have a grudge against me. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 10:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    That’s not the main reason they were deleted, accusing someone of internalized bigotry shouldn’t be done so lightly. In addition to it being offensive, @GrammarCommie pointed out on the draft talk page that it doesn’t apply to a lot of people you’ve listed (they’re just grifters). Some of them are just examples of (perceived) general bigotry with no specific connection to internalized bigotry; the “general language” section, the part that’s only included because of a saloon bar argument, is almost entirely this. Christopher (talk) 10:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    I removed the problematic name per GC's request and internalized bigotry can be like a microaggression, you didn't intend to be bigoted, but you are. Look, there's UninspiredNickname who said something bigoted although from what I gathered that was not intentional. Using slurs is bigoted and so does using slurs as part of a minority group. You are arguing the semantics of bigotry when you know full well what bigotry is. Several trolls here got banned for using slurs, some were banned by you, if using slurs wasn't bigoted, they would be allowed to say whatever they want here. That's a paradigm I don't understand here, why are you allowed to use slurs, but not Michael Coombs, not DMorris, not anyone else. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 10:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    My point was that there’s no reason for the examples to be on a page about internalized bigotry, as they’re not about marginalised groups. The only reason you included the argument about “the r word” is because you first heard it from me, and the only reason it’s in an article about internalized bigotry is because I’m autistic. Christopher (talk) 11:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    When do you stop making everything about yourself, you are not the only one to use slurs as if they were not harmful, there are people of color handing N-word passes to white people on the streets for crying out loud, and how about you do not bring autism for no reason into a conversation? MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    You added the paragraph about retard/idiot comparisons to Uncle Tom immediately after I made the same argument in the saloon, now you’re adding the exact same thing again. I brought up autism because, if it weren’t for the fact that I’m autistic, this wouldn’t be an example of internalized bigotry in your eyes, just general bigotry. This is all public, anyone interested (I doubt many are) can read talk:Uncle Tom where we had this exact same argument before. Christopher (talk) 12:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    I didn't think about that initially, I actually spend most of my time on articles pertaining to people and sometimes, articles pertaining to the alt-right. You cannot just assume I would have done something only due to a stupid argument, you are using a fallacy. I don't know which one, but you certainly arguing in a fallacious manner here. Why can't you assume good faith for once in your entire fucking life. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Maybe you would’ve made the article regardless, but it’s very obvious the paragraph that is just a rebuttal of an argument I made in the saloon (that you first tried to insert into mainspace immediately after said argument) is there because of the argument in the saloon. Let’s ignore all the context, which is all very boring drama, why should the paragraph in question be in the article? What does it have to do with internalized bigotry? Christopher (talk) 12:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    It should be in the article because the use of slurs is generally regarded as prejudiced if not straight-up bigoted. Here's a scientific paper on the matter, [1]. the n-word, f-word and r-word are dehumanizing since they are massively pejorative. The n-word alone was used to refer to slaves who were mostly people of color (Though white slaves did exist) and during the 20's century (1900-2000) when people had very little human rights, they were ragarded as inferior to white people and because the n-word is that dehumanizing it is extremely problematic to say it, some people of color want their fellow people of color to stop using the word altogether. There is an entire article dedicated to the n-word only because it is truly one of the most racist words in the dictionary. Now, when I'm speaking of that word in this article I am referring to not only poc that use it frequently, but also poc that encourage non-poc to use it, despite its extremely harmful effects, the article on bigotry (Yeah that one on mainspace) could cover the usage of slurs and how damaging they are to everyday people. This is not for no reason that alt-righters like Michael Coombs keep using them, they know they are bigoted, they know they are offensive and they know it is an effective way to know whether someone is bigoted or not through the jargon. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 12:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    I’m not disputing “bigotry”, I’m disputing “internalized”. Most people defending the usage of slurs aren’t the people the slurs are referring to. No idea what Michael Coombs has to do with anything. Christopher (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    When speaking of internalized, we focus on minorities using said slurs within their own groups. Poc using the n-word can be equally as damaging as a white person using it, but even more so when the person of color starts encouraging white people to say it out loud. I brought Michael Coombs into the discourse simply to show you how the slurs are far more damaging than you're making them out to be, regardless of the ethnicity, disability or sexual orientation of the person. Milo Yiannopoulos is a bigot (Can we all agree on that?), but he is still part of the LGBT, hence it is internalized bigotry and Milo Yiannopoulos not only says that men shouldn't marry together at the church. Additionally, he loves the f-word and called himself a "fabulous f*gg*t" once. Now, whether he does it for money or not, I will have to check that out. I already removed one example from the article per Grammar Commie's comment. The main article on bigotry could benefit from the study I posted on my above comment. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    To be clear, you think black people who say the n word are bigoted? I don’t think we should be promoting that idea uncritically in mainspace, but perhaps I’ve misunderstood you. Milo isn’t mentioned in the language section, and I don’t think he should be.
    You haven’t really defended the language section as it currently stands, which is just “slurs are bad, sometimes people defend slurs, sometimes those people are minorities”, it’s just not worth mentioning. As the article itself says, “thankfully, it is fairly rare, and nobody that both matters and is part of a minority group ever said that as of late”. Christopher (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    I saw DuceMoosolini use the r-word in a block. The term "rare" is to say that depending on where you look, it is uncommon. The n-word with a hard r, not the one that ends in A, it is frowned upon to say the n-word, including in poc communities. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    Small note: Milo nowadays identifies as an "ex-gay", likely to be able to sell shit about being ex-gay to the religious right. Again, this isn't internalized bigotry, it's grifting for money. I think you really might want to consider what internalized bigotry actually means instead of this warped version you spewed out an entire article about that includes grifters with real examples of internalized bigotry. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 13:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  2. Redundant. Gangster Computer God (talk) 10:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  3. Badly written article, attributes grifting to internalized bigotry rather than the simple desire to make money. There's nothing to salvage here and I would dread seeing this article being moved to mainspace. Techpriest (I am Alpharius! / Pencil.png / Tux icon.png / Shield.png) 11:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  4. The article as it stands does not cover marginalized groups buying into bigoted social norms. It does not explain how bigotry is faulty social norms and stereotypes, or how anyone, even someone from a marginalized group, can buy into those norms stereotypes. As such it has failed in it's primary purpose. It also conflates grifters with valid subjects,and ascribes malicious intent to the subjects. This latter point is understandable to some degree, as it can be hard to find public figures who fit the criteria for this phenomena, and at first glance many grifters may seem appropriate.☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 12:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    @GrammarCommie Why don't you help me improve the draft since you seem knowledgeable on the topic? Christopher just started this dumbass AfD because he has a grudge against me. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  5. Pizza SLICE.gifChef Moosolini’s Ristorante ItalianoMake a Reservation 13:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  6. Serene (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


  1. Christopher is once again trying to pick a fight with me for no reason. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  2. I read the article and I don't see why it shouldn't be on RationalWiki. Just slap a stub notice to let people know this is incomplete and move on. (Profile) - (Spoke!) 10:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  3. I agree with the local town idiot here. This warrants an article, even if it should be entirely re-written. 2A02:120B:C3FB:3B40:F59D:4FAA:510E:4F1D (talk) 11:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    It’s already got an article, and if there’s nothing worth saving in the current draft there’s no point keeping it. Christopher (talk) 11:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    I'm sure and certain he read it since you linked that up there, but uncle tom is a term for black american citizens, it does not cover sexism, ableism and the likes. If you don't wanna have an article with so many examples and include some more content, then edit the article. I don't get what you're being hissy about, this is a draftspace article, this is meant to be improved by the community before it warrants being on mainspace. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 11:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    I don’t think the examples should be included, and if you remove the examples you don’t have an article. I am understandably annoyed that you’re tacitly accusing me of internalized bigotry by including an argument I made in the saloon over a month ago in the article, we talked about this when you first did it immediately after the article happened. Christopher (talk) 11:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    Fully agreed here. We don't need examples, but the article itself should not be deleted. 2A02:120B:C3FB:3B40:F59D:4FAA:510E:4F1D (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    Like I said, add more content. I would keep the examples to illustrate how that form of bigotry functions, the other article on bigotry has a few examples if I recall correctly. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    A number of people have explained why the examples have to go, bigotry doesn’t have examples. Christopher (talk) 12:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  4. I don't like the way this article looks and I think Uncle Tom is enough for the main space. But it is on Mario's sandbox now, so it's probably ok. GeeJayK (talk) 17:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)



Almost a quarter of this wiki is stubby drafts, many or perhaps even most unlabeled as such, which is theoretically fine. But that this site spends more time on recentchanges debates on NOINDEXED pages, instead of somehow dealing with the drafts in mainspace is odd to say the least 2604:A880:400:D0:0:0:1E7D:E001 (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Christopher and MarioSuperstar77 keep fighting each other for perceived hatred, so you must be right. Too bad you are an IP address because your opinion now holds nothing whatsoever here. 2A02:120B:C3FB:3B40:F59D:4FAA:510E:4F1D (talk) 14:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Shabidoo@Plutocow. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Why am I being pinged here? ShabiDOO 15:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I would hope that you'd vote keep to keep this article, this is a topic that might interest you. The only reason it is nominated for deletion is because Christopher has a grudge against me. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I think it's a great idea to have an article like this but I agree it is of fairly poor quality in its current condition. Why don't you move it to your userspace/sandbox and work on it? ShabiDOO 17:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
What the fuck is the purpose of draft space if articles are being AfDed over bullshit disputes like that? "Uncle Tom" is not the same as internalized oppressionWikipedia. The shit excised from the Uncle Tom article, which is what I assume was the content of the draft, also was poor quality and did not belong there. But if the content is solely in Mario's sandbox, this means it less visible for others to work on. So unless it is hopelessly off-mission, which as a topic it is not, I don't really see the point of this AfD. PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2021 (UTC)