Talk:Racial pride

	This Racialism related article has been assessed as SIGNIFICANTLY PROBLEMATIC in one or more ways. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.
This article requires attention for the following reason(s): Needs more sources. Tagged since May 2024

Comment

I'm on this like a nun sandwich. +1 internet point to anyone who gets the reference. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

?

Oh, and don't feed the troll who made this. --Signed by Elassint the Great ^Hi!

Well, what do we do then? If we delete, then we open ourselves up to allegations of being like Conservapedia. If we ignore, we get him/her spamming up the whole site. If we block, s/he registers another account. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Question for all liberals: why is white pride bad and black pride just fine? Prussian1488 16:58, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Racism is bad. That is what I think. Anything else is a strawman fallacy on your part.-- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

But to you, white pride is racism and black pride isn't. Are you scared to answer why? Prussian1488 17:00, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Classic troll tactic: "Are you scared to answer why?" --Signed by Elassint the Great ^Hi! 17:02, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Apparently you are. So you AREN'T like Conservapedia, or something... Prussian1488 17:03, 28 November 2007 (EST)

no u. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!} PS - Strawman tactics again. Actually, that was probably one of the rare places where 'no u' is a valid comeback.

LOL, yu won't answer. Go ahead and block me, CP admin! Prussian1488 17:04, 28 November 2007 (EST)

No we won't ban you. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Answer my question or I will link to Metapedia. Prussian1488 17:07, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Oh noes! So scared!

OK, since we evidently negotiate with you lot, I'll repeat what I said earlier. If you are a racist, then I am opposed to that view, whatever ethnic background you come from. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

But to you, black pride is NOT racism. It is simply a way to redress the hate of the "evil white man". Prussian1488 17:12, 28 November 2007 (EST)

If it's racist, it's racist. Stop putting words in my mouth. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

I'm sure you people support the SLPC and ADL as well, both of which favor minorities over white poeple. Prussian1488 17:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)

I'm sure you meant SPLC... and the whole persecution complex on behalf of white christians has to stop. Poor babies! The fact is that organizations like the ADL and the SPLC are there to correct power imbalances, and put racial groups on the same footing, not one over the other. It may deprive you of your slavery and cross-burning rights, but really, poor baby!-αmεσ (spy) 17:15, 28 November 2007 (EST)

DONT FEED THE TROLL --Signed by Elassint the Great ^Hi! 17:14, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Can someone ban Elaissint? Prussian1488 17:15, 28 November 2007 (EST)

No, we lurv him.-αmεσ (spy) 17:15, 28 November 2007 (EST)

άγαπη, folks. Anyway, Elassint, we haven't been feeding this troll for months, yet he still comes back for more. I don't think this one's Jeb, though ... - מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Who's Jeb? Prussian1488 17:24, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Just some guy, y'know? -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

SPLC Hates free speech

SPLC is a menace to free speech. It esists only to slander and attack people because of their racial pride. It only attacks whites, it nevers says anything about Black Panthers, except when they are anti-semitic. Neo-Nazis deserve freedom without the commie SPLC hindering it. Prussian1488 17:17, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Are you claiming that you are a Neo-Nazi yourself, Prussian? (stand back people, I'm using science!)-- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

ZOMG XKCD REF! As for the SPLC, do you have specific allegations, or is it more fun just to bitch generally?-αmεσ (spy) 17:20, 28 November 2007 (EST)

SPLC attempts to disrupt the lives of pro-White activists. Prussian1488 17:23, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Answer the question, Mr Prussia - are you claiming to be a Neo-Nazi? -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

He is a troll --Signed by Elassint the Great ^Hi! 17:27, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Elassint should be banned. He keeps causing edit conflicts, Prussian1488 17:28, 28 November 2007 (EST)

See above, Elassint, for my reasoning. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

You know, you can't ban me because i have sysop powa --Signed by Elassint the Great ^Hi! 17:33, 28 November 2007 (EST)

How about you give me sysop power too? Prussian1488 17:34, 28 November 2007 (EST)

. . . How about not? Master Bra'tac^Kree! 17:35, 28 November 2007 (EST)

No, who would want to be demoted? -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

WTF? Prussian1488 17:36, 28 November 2007 (EST)

"Prussian1488"? Of course he's a Neo-Nazi. _{I go away for an hour to write an article and see what you people let in while I'm away...} --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 17:45, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Ah. In that case, do you have a dream, Prussian1488? --Robledo 17:48, 28 November 2007 (EST)

I'm wondering if I can finally enforce the ICPR that I drafted into RW guidelines many moons ago, AK. ;) -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Tell you what: Let's try enforcing it for a bit. If he haz problem, he can always complain to the wp:Human Rights Committee, as he is (sorta-by-extension) within his rights to do under Article 41 of the Covenant. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 18:03, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Hah, but there's 41:1:c to deal with: '(c) The Committee shall deal with a matter referred to it only after it has ascertained that all available domestic remedies have been invoked and exhausted in the matter, in conformity with the generally recognized principles of international law. This shall not be the rule where the application of the remedies is unreasonably prolonged;'. All available domestic remedies would be, I dunno, whining on a forum? Writing a snarky blog post? -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

I suggest we cross that bridge when we get to it. We're establishing legal precedent here, after all, and that's never easy. --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 18:18, 28 November 2007 (EST)

These are quite obviously threats (invoking the law), and should not be tolerated. Legalthreatsannihilator 18:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)

FAIL. It's not law in the way that you mean. We're using it as a system of ethics; you wouldn't ban Thomists on similar grounds, would you? Oh, and hi Jeb. -- מְתֻרְגְּמָן וִיקִי ^{שְׁלֹום!}

Black pride is RACIST

And this article should reflect that. Prussian1488 18:16, 28 November 2007 (EST)

It is only racist if it says that Black is BETTER than White. Which no Black Power person I've ever met has said. (And I've met PLENTY.) Researcher 18:17, 28 November 2007 (EST) EDIT: I take it back, the Nation of Islam has said that plenty of times, and yes, they are racist. But Marcus Garvey, etc., did not, and thus are worthy of respect. Researcher 18:18, 28 November 2007 (EST)

By the same logic you use, the concept of white pride is only racist if it says that Whites are BETTER than Blacks. Do you disagree? because that would make you a hypocrite. I've seen previous arguments that white pride is used by Neo-Nazi therefore it's evil. However, that would be as fallacious as saying that all Muslims are terrorists. Just because Neo-Nazi have white pride it doesn't mean all white pride is racist, but it is usually fallaciously perceived as such. If black people are allowed to express pride in the fact that they are black, then white people should be allowed to express pride in being white. If either of them takes flak, so should the other. The students are chanting “Black power” don't instigate much outrage over the blatant racism carried by that statement. If a group of white people were to gather at a college and chant “White power”, it would be all over the news for the next week. Both of these statements are racist, racism is not “prejudice plus power”, or only capable of being done by the majority. Anyone can be racist, be they Black, White, Asian, Indian, etc. MindoverMatter (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@MindoverMatter Please sign your comments by either clicking the signature button at the top of the edit window or type four tiles ~~~~.

Your argument is confusing. I see your point about the double standards, but are you saying racial pride is racist for everyone or it should be acceptable for everyone? CowHouse (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I am saying that whatever the opinion is about black racial pride, the opinion about white pride should be the same, otherwise it's racist because the only true difference between these 2 concepts are black/white. And using Neo-Nazi as an example of why black pride can be good but white pride isn't, is fallacious. My personal belief is that pride of any kind that doesn't concern your own achivements is bad, and that both "black power" and "white power" are equally racist but one is deemed as acceptable while the other as racist. But as far as the purpose of this page is concerned I make no statement on whether racial pride is good or bad because that's not the point of this page, the statement I made is that black pride and white pride shouldn't be treated different.MindoverMatter (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

What specific part of the page do you find objectionable? It lists the Nation of Islam and New Black Panther Party as examples of black pride being negative.

"And using Neo-Nazi as an example of why black pride can be good but white pride isn't, is fallacious." < this isn't on the page. CowHouse (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

The first heading in White Pride - "White pride = racism?": "However, the labels of "racist" or "Nazi" are not usually applied to those who are merely "proud" of their ethnic heritage". They kinda are. As an example: The students are chanting “Black power” don't instigate much outrage over the blatant racism carried by that statement. If a group of white people were to gather at a college and chant “White power”, it would be all over the news for the next week.

I never said it's on the page, I mentioned it because I have seen this argument made on this page "When someone is "proud" of being "white", it's almost ALWAYS a cover for actually hating other races".--MindoverMatter (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

The key part there was "ethnic heritage", not racial. "White" isn't an ethnicity. This is a good explanation for the difference.

The context of white pride is significantly different in Western nations compared to other forms of racial pride. White pride is most notable for being a slogan used by overtly racist groups and websites (e.g. "White Pride World Wide" for neo-Nazi website Stormfront), whereas black pride (particularly in the United States) is generally perceived as a response to racism (e.g. 1968 Olympics Black Power salute). Treating these two concepts equally would be to ignore their historical context.

However, black pride doesn't just get a free pass. As I said earlier, the Nation of Islam and New Black Panther Party are examples of black pride being negative. CowHouse (talk) 07:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

And as we all know, no race is better than any other race. Do you disagree? --Signed by Elassint the Great ^Hi! 18:20, 28 November 2007 (EST)

I dunno. The Indy 500's pretty darn good.

What? -Master Bra'tac^Kree! 18:51, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Then white pride isn't racist either. Prussian1488 18:19, 28 November 2007 (EST)

No, it isn't. It's only when one starts "comparing" that the trouble starts. CЯacke®

When someone is "proud" of being "white", it's almost ALWAYS a cover for actually hating other races. Most white people in America do not really consider their "whiteness" to be a defining characteristic of their lives; instead, they focus on their religion, their smaller nationality (Irish, British, etc.) Those who actually care enough about the category of "white" almost always do so because they feel threatened by the other "races". This is the seed from which the racism then flows. Now, if you are proud of being "white" (which puts you in the same category as about 1/5 or 1/6 of the planet) without being down on anyone else, then far be it from me to tell you not to be. But the sociological process that causes "racial pride" in a majority suggests that is not the case. (Added to that is the username you use, which explicitly references some VERY racist folks. So, I don't buy it.) Researcher 18:36, 28 November 2007 (EST)

I notice our troll isn't bothering to read what we add to the article. The reason white pride has a bad name are people who take the pride one step further and denigrate or assault other "races". I'm proud of being Celtic, or whatever the hell it is I am (roman, norse, french, icelandic, who knows how many people invaded Wales?), but it makes me think no less of the French or the Zulus. They're cool too. I'm also embarrassed for the British Empire. See, you can be simulateously proud and ashamed of something! As far as white pride, this prussian person thingie makes me ashamed to be white with his lack of reasoning skills and troglodyte attitudes. human 19:05, 28 November 2007 (EST)

See this.--PalMD^{-If it looks like a donut, eat it} 18:39, 28 November 2007 (EST)

i am looking for a web site that will accept my views. i concider myself a "KRACKER GIRL" ^{— Unsigned, by: 71.83.96.215 / talk / contribs} 9:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

St. Patrick's Day marchers and neo-Nazis

In Boston the sponsors of the Paddy's day march succeeded - in court - at getting the homosexual Irish float nixed. The Irish-Americans are not the poster children for inclusiveness to compare the Nazis to. ħuman 03:51, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Using St. Patrick's Day as an argument for either sides is fallacious because it's a ritualistic festival - a designated time when people can violate social norms. It does not prove a point about either white pride or black pride. ^{— Unsigned, by: MindoverMatter / talk / contribs}

Racial Pride=Cultural Pride

Isn't it possible this is what Racial Pride really means. Most Races are from a different continent (Whites from Europe, Blacks from Africa, Asians from Asia, Indians from America etc) Each continent and each country has a unique and rich culture, so when someone says "I am proud to be white" it could simply be a simplified "I am produ to be (insert country here) hell i'm british and damn proud of it. Because many brits are in fact white (note i said most, i know they are many other races living in the UK) than it is resonible to assume we must be proud of being white as well. So i'll keep my tea, toad in the whole, and bangers and mash thank you very much--BenB (talk) 16:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I find it awkward that there isn't a politically correct term to teach my kid about his heritage. Traditionally, my family has celebrated German-Catholic traditions despite having a French surname. However, my kid has German/Swedish/French/Italian/Irish/English/Polish/Native American ancestry. On both sides of his family, his ancestors have been Americans for over 150 years. There isn't a singular "American" heritage that I can pass down, and there are too many parts of his heritage to teach him about. I want him to have some part of his family's history, but it is difficult to give him a history to be proud of when it is so diverse (albeit blindingly white).

Useless Idiot (talk)

After reading this article...

...I have an urge to, on St. Patrick's Day, march out into the middle of the parade and shout that they have no reason to be proud of being Irish. I won't accuse them of being racist (they don't say non-Irish are lesser people), but why should you be proud of something you had literally no control over? The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

While I feel it's a definitions issue over what "pride" is, I really don't see much to be "proud" of in what you are. It just doesn't make much sense, though often in the case of pride marches it's a case of "not being ashamed". ADK^{...I'll enumerate your random string of characters!} 14:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Bunch of morons

It's perfectly natural to be proud of your race, if your not then in the long run it will lead to social collapse, a nation is built from people who share the same race, in reality skin colour takes a back seat when speaking about racial difference, Genes, they never lie.^{— Unsigned, by: 86.11.102.64 / talk / contribs}

Ah, the Natural News fan strikes again. Race is different from ethnicity and national identity. The rest is not coherent enough to be worth addressing.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I am proud to be part of a multicultural, multiethnic, multireligious, multilingual society - and I wouldn't want it any other way. Diversity makes life interesting. (((Zack Martin)))^™ 10:50, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

St. Patrick's Day and homophobia?

Moved to Talk:Homophobia, as it's off-topic Sophie^Wilder 13:38, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Mindovermatter's edits

They can easily be taken out of context to make it look like we support white pride and aren't particularly well written. I agree with the overall sentiment though. @MindoverMatter Christopher (talk) 13:54, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

From visiting both pages (black pride and white pride) it currently looks like you're supporting black pride yet deem white pride as racist, which isn't particularly well written either.

Thanks for replying and I have a few questions since I'm new on rationalwiki, some of them are rather skeptical, the purpose is not to attempt to debunk the site but to be convinced that rationalwiki is indeed rational:

- How do I make a new heading on page talks as you just made?

- How page talks work and when is the change made? - I'm particulary interested in whether reason and arguments are going to have weight or people just make their points but it's usually the admin's decision whether the change happens or not, this would lead to points contradictory to the admin's opinions not making through regardless of its validity, some of the points made may be ignorend and not even be replied and some arguments may take forever to change the page which will ressult in the page remaining in the current position.

- How can this side prove that it's not politically biased? - I can see the claim that "we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity" and I would really like to believe that, but it's not the only site to claim that. To eliminate any possible assumptions my poltical views are classical liberalism - progressivist but more individualist than left-liberalism's collectivism (pro universal healthcare, a more equal wealth distribution, equal rights but against the idea that we should all be the same or equally rich or equality of outcome of any kind). And couldn't help but notice that on political topics the point of view is a copycat of the liberal opinion while no popular criticism of that opinion is expressed even when it's logically sound, besides it doesn't present both narratives nor mentions the conservative alternative with a proper rebuttal. (For example: The double-standards of third wave feminism's are dismissed as minor and unrepresentative extremism even though ideas such as white male privilege, men can't be oppressed because they are the opressors, their fallacious stances on rape and violance, the mostly excuslive focus on women despite the claim to fight for both genders, are deeply integrated into the third wave feminism culture and accepted by the vast majority of feminists, "Wage Gap" being argued as real because of society's expectation while the argument that men and women generally choose different carrers because they have different needs and goals is popular and sound yet not mentioned, gender identity extremes not mentioned, the black pride vs white pride pages, or the pro-choice vs pro-life pages, and it can go on but the point is consistent). On the other hand when it comes to the scientific or logical fallacies of conservatives, rationalwiki quick to call them out, which doesn't give the impression of a logical and impartial site but rather of the liberal side of the coin for Conservapedia, as far as politics are concerned.

I'm aware this isn't the place for this discussion but I don't know where else to contact you, if there is such place please move this ^ there.

Please use a colon to indent your responses. This makes it easier to differentiate your post from the one you are responding to.

To make a new heading, use two equals signs on either side of the title (e.g. ==Example==).

To answer your second point, read this: RW:MOB.

My personal answer to your third point is that most pages aren't perfect and can be greatly improved. I would say there is legitimate bias on some issues. For example, there are simply more conservatives than liberals who deny the science of climate change. Trying to be pretend otherwise would be fallacious. Your other points should be addressed one at a time on the relevant pages you mentioned.

May I ask, are you a fan of Sargon of Akkad by any chance? CowHouse (talk) 16:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you.

How does the whole process work? I understand there's a consensus but when the discussions stop and the voting begins? Which comments are selected for voting? And how does the edit actually happen? Mobocracy however leaves the process exposed to bandwagon fallacy, the popularity of an idea has absolutely no bearing on its validity.

I wouldn't name it bias when there is a legitimate rebutal as in the climate change's case, as mentioned previously when it comes to scientific or logical fallacies of conservatives the rationalwiki is quick to call them out, but even in those cases it wouldn't hurt to present the deniars' arguments debunked, after all reason should include rebutal of criticism as well especially when it's a popular one. Otherwise the site can be described as very selective about the facts that it is interested in, which is what I notice when it comes to the liberal opinions that I disagree with, it's not that they disagree with me, it's that the popular criticism of that opinion is not expressed even when it's logically sound which makes it seem dishonest. We could address one at a time on the relevant pages I mentioned but I don't think this would change the core problem. The site doesn't claim to have a neutral point of view (which is contradictory with the rational part) and many articles (including the ones mentioned above) are ideological often making bold uncited claims. So how can this side prove that it's not politically biased?

I never heard of him. In terms of political Youtube channels I usually watch Vox, PragerU and VisualPolitik. When it comes to actual bloggers I used to watch and generally agreed with MrRepzion and Thunderf00t. I have now noticed that there is a Thunderf00t rationalwiki page as well as an Anita Sarkeesian page. Thunderf00t's page has its share of criticism often with unsupported claims (Not saying that they are wrong or right, just saying that since the claims are not argumented they cannot be taken seriously and it's not rational either) while Anita Sarkeesian's criticism is shallow and has a response section attached to it unlike Thunderf00t's case, this further supports my impression not of a logical and impartial site but rather of the opinionated liberal side of the coin for Conservapedia.MindoverMatter (talk) 20:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

If you're a complete beginner to this, I suggest you lurk on here for a while just to pick up how everything is done. If an administrator reverts your edits and nobody backs you up then generally you won't get the change you want, which I understand is frustrating. In this case, the user who reverted your edits has given you feedback to re-word the section you added, as he agrees with your general point.

Yes, a mobocracy isn't perfect, but it's better than the alternatives.

"I wouldn't name it bias...." This whole paragraph is rather vague. Can you give me a specific example of what you're talking about?

Why is a "neutral point of view" something to strive for? The section you added wasn't neutral, it was very opinionated. Personally, being accurate is the goal, not being neutral.

I agree with you about the un-cited claims by the way. Removing un-cited claims is not too difficult though. In terms of liberal bias, even if you are correct, then leaving the site because of its supposed liberal bias would be somewhat of a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's definitely not going to change if everyone who thought like you avoided the site. There are users on the site with fairly similar views to yours, but admittedly they are in the minority. CowHouse (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Severely lacking in sources

This is a fairly detailed page, but it's sad to see that it only has 2 sources; One of which is for a quote and the other for something that isn't even that important to the point the article is trying to make TheOneAndOnlyCirrusMan (talk) 17:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)