Talk:It's Okay to Be White

@FuzzyCatPotato: Couldn't this be merged into Alt-Right, The Daily Stormer, or 4chan? RoninMacbeth (talk) 04:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

It's got enough press to deserve its own page IMO. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 07:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, as far as I know, it seems like it should be used as an example instance for a broader article like white guilt, reverse racism, or Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a longer article

While I agree that this topic seems like more of an example than the topic of an article, Wikipedia has a more detailed and informative article on this topic.Ariel31459 (talk) 14:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

What the fuck are you even on about. Go edit wikipedia if you want wikipedia articles. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Ikanreed It seems you have not taken my implication. Sorry to have not been more direct. This article is a stub. It is inadequately detailed. Surprisingly, even Wikipedia, has a better article from a social justice POV. Feel better now?Ariel31459 (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Not really, because looking at the two, I don't really see any specific oversights, and your comment doesn't give me any either. Wikipedia seems to be longer because it's more attributive, but doesn't really cover any ground we are missing. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

So, leaving out information is your idea of "less is more"?Ariel31459 (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Many kinds of information are superfluous to our mission. And again, lacking specifics, I don't see anything important missing. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Well I'm not going to argue about what is or is not relevant. As an historic event, the story is very close to being tedious. The WP article states its creators claimed, perhaps post hoc, it was proposed as an experiment/(joke?) to see how much of an SJ-commotion it might create. That is, it's purpose was to provoke a significant social justice response. But, I don't care about this article and I don't want to expand it. As you already know, getting other editors to do the work one thinks should be done is like herding cats. Ariel31459 (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

That's the "ha ha only serious" category of alt-right jokes, where "joke" merely means "I don't wish to be held accountable". I'm glad we can come to a consensus of you not doing anything. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Oh I don't think they care about being held accountable. It is dubious to suppose that they can be held accountable. Being accurate is my default position. That they were trolling social justice media seems likely. Ariel31459 (talk) 16:46, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ "Sure it became such a core nazi key-phrase that it's got multiple articles with that exact title on stormfront, but it's just trolling so obviously you're overreacting". You're a dumb person ariel. I don't mean that as an insult, per se; if you found one thing to pursue in life in the goal of self-improvement, being less dumb would absolutely be a good choice. If that's not specific enough, being less dumb about right wingers who pinky swear they're operating in good faith. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 17:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Now, now, I am certain the stormfront people are quite serious and reprehensible. They are real and not kidding and part of the post hoc response. You lack a certain amount of subtlety in your reasoning. You aren't stupid. It would be a good trick to convince others that they are not intelligent enough to follow your reasoning, when you don't bother to produce any. Ariel31459 (talk) 19:15, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Uh huh, so your core point is even though it's an obviously central argument of serious white nationalists, we should go out of our way to say "well, maybe possibly, this anonymous person who claims to be the same anonymous person who came up with it said they were joking" like it's informative or useful information? There's no "subtlety" to that. There's no insight to that. There's just you taking the principle of charity, tying it around your neck and jumping off a chair.

It's fucking stupid ariel. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 14:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Needs more in depth discussion

This article needs more information. It accuses the term of being a loaded word, but doesn't explain what it's supposed to be loaded *with*. Moreover, don't we usually have sections on articles like this detailing "It is indeed okay to be white, but..."?Skadooshbag (talk) 08:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

It's loaded because it catches you in a "have you stopped beating your spouse" situation where the intentions behind the vague platitude are more insidious but responding to this makes you seem intolerant. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 20:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

What is the umbrella term for the rhetorical strategy in "It's Okay to Be White"?

I hope somebody can answer this. It seems to me that "It's OK to be white" falls under a broader category of deceitful rhetorical strategy: making (and making a slogan of) an obviously true statement, in order to falsely insinuate that one's opponents believe the opposite (and in effect hijacking the statement so that it can no longer be used without the connotations you've added to it). I'd say that All Lives Matter falls under the same category, falsely insinuating that BLM supporters don't believe that all lives matter. There should be an umbrella term for this, and I've searched but cannot find one. (Should we coin one?) It seems like it might be related to motte and bailey fallacy (with the slogan "It's Okay to be White" as the "motte"), but it's not quite the same. Can anyone enlighten me? --Subito Fortissimo (talk) 10:35, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I think TERFs (e.g. J. K. Rowling) saying that "Biological sex is real" may fall into the same category too, because they are falsely implying that their opponents say otherwise (when the truth is that biological sex is indeed real but much more complicated than a matter of who has which chromosomes). --Subito Fortissimo (talk) 05:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I believe so too. I think the thing is similar to loaded question where they try to manipulate you into accepting their hidden ideas or you seem to reject the vague, context-less platitude, but I think the overall term is dog whistle politics where a vague term that is tried to be stripped from context so it can be accepted at face value. It says it right in the article. I don't think we need a specific term for the phenomenon when the current term "dogwhistle" is adequate. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 17:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC)