Talk:It's okay to be white

Controversy over what it's supposed to mean

Some conservative backlash to the the slogan's condemnation has included attempts to discuss whether being white is intrinsically a bad thing -- as opposed to being black (see black pride). We don't have an article on racial pride (as of Jan. 2024 it redirects to [[ Race (human categorization)]].Which cultures or races are allowed to be proud of their cultural heritage? Is there an exception? Who says so, and on what grounds?

These are not rhetorical questions, and I'm not promoting a side in the debate. I'd like the article to say something like

• X regards IOTBW as code for "it is preferable to be white, because whites are superior and should dominate other races".

I'd also like the article to find a way to describe (neutrally) the views expressed by Tucker Carlson and Scott Adams. Like, "Adams regards American blacks as hate group because nearly half don't think being white is okay." Balanced, of course, with criticism by X or Y or Z for daring to call blacks (who are themselves the target of hate and violence) hateful.

Does any of this sound like a good idea? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's worth focusing too much on opinion pieces from talking heads unless they have secondary coverage; and when they do, we ought to rely on what the secondary coverage says and how they're characterized there. People like the ones you mentioned aren't experts and are basically professional opinion-havers and axe-grinders who weigh in on everything, making the same arguments in the same directions; what they say isn't generally significant or WP:DUE for random articles. --Aquillion (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Source for alt-right connection

My edit was reverted, with the summary

• Rv WP:OR analysis, "some regard it as" MOS:AWW

Taking the second critique first, I couldn't find any reliable source branding IOTBW as alt-right. Not that I doubt this for a moment, but I'd like to be able to provide an attribution. Who has said it's an alt right slogan? I'm guessing the ADL, or The Manitoban (a Canadian student newspaper). Or is it simply common knowledge? (We don't have to provide a source for the view that the earth is "regarded as spherical" every time we bring up its shape: that really is common knowledge.)

I also wrote, "... condemned as racist on the grounds that it really means it is preferable to be white, which smacks of white supremacy." Well, if that's not the reason, what is?

• Aren't critics condemning the slogan as racist?
• Don't they regard it as a code phrase, slyly promoting white supremacy?

Okay, maybe it's premature to put it in the lede; if so, please help me flesh it out in the body. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

The second part is just straightforward WP:OR; if sources describe it as alt-right or white supremacist messaging or whatever, then we have to, too. We can't just speculate as to why because you're not convinced. And of course "some regard it as" is WP:WEASEL phrasing. But we could plausibly call it a white supremacist slogan. Brooks (in the external links) covers its usage as a slogan by alt-right figures but first and foremost describes it as white supremacist messaging. Sengul describes it as designed by online white supremacist groups, as a key example of what Hermansson et al. (2020, p. 1) refer to as digital hate culture associated with the alternative right (alt-right). So I wouldn't omit the connection to the alt-right entirely. --Aquillion (talk) 21:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Origin of the phrase

• White supremacists have used the phrase since at least the early 2000s, said Mark Pitcavage, a senior research fellow for the Anti-Defamation League’s Center on Extremism. [1]

Perhaps the term white supremacist is more precise than alt-right, which our own article admits, "... is ill-defined and has been used in different ways by academics, journalists, media commentators, and alt-right members themselves."

I'm planning to change the first sentence to say

a slogan used to promote white supremacy ...

or

a white supremacist slogan ...

Okay? --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Per above, I'd tend to agree that sourcing emphasizes the fact that it's a white supremacist slogan more than it being an alt-right one, so that should probably be the descriptor in the first sentence of the lead; but I do think we should mention the connection the alt-right somewhere in the article, since the sources also discuss that. --Aquillion (talk) 21:55, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

History and larger context

I'm getting a sense that the slogan IOTBW did not originate in the trolling campaign that is currently the major focus of the article. So I have two proposals:

1. Show when and where the slogan has been used, prior to 2017
2. Describe the larger context of the slogan, while also explaining the poster campaign.
   • It may have been to stir up anti-black prejudice (if the trolls were white supremacists)
   • It may have been just make a fuss, like adolescents who abuse their freedom of speech to say or post the most outrageous things they can think of, on the grounds that they are "merely" asserting their rights

Google gave me a follow-up poll (which seems legitimate), indicating that -- no surprise! -- the wording of the Rasmussen poll question was significant. I've read elsewhere that variations of 10 to 30 percentage points are common, depending on how you load the questions.

• Extreme example: "Do you want to save the planet?" vs. "Do you want to let energy companies pollute the air?"

Cloud Research poll:

• https://www.cloudresearch.com/resources/blog/its-ok-to-be-white-rasmussen-poll/

I'm not getting much traction here in comments. Does that mean I have carte blanche to make all my suggested edits? --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the poll itself is meaningfully usable as a source, especially considering that it postdates the trolling campaign. Most secondary coverage that I'm aware of mostly framed it in the context of the trolling campaign and what Rasmussen's intent was. And you haven't presented any other sources so... no, I'd oppose everything you described here. If you want to argue there were significant non-trolling uses you would need very significant WP:SECONDARY coverage, which I'm skeptical actually exists because I suspect the "sense" you're getting is probably wrong. Even if you could find one or two examples of usage, that wouldn't shift the bulk of coverage - to rewrite the article the way you want, you would need truly overwhelming secondary coverage discussing the term with no reference to the trolling campaign, or significant coverage that overtly describes the existence of it as a non-trolling term in ways that make it clear that that is the main topic. Neither are in evidence at all in any of the searches I've done - coverage at all levels is pretty much 100% about the trolling campaign, so that's what our article ought to be, too. More generally, most of your proposals above are pretty light on sources, too. The article is fairly well-sourced and the sources are pretty clear on the term's origin, how it was used, and by who, so you really need to actually find sources for alternative formulations if you want to suggest major changes. --Aquillion (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Aquillion, for your thoughtful and detailed comments. I apologize for taking so long to get back to you.

I'm also glad that I waited for feedback before -- instead of? -- tackling all the changes myself.

1. I like the idea of attributing opinions such as "It's considered by XYZ to be an alt-right slogan" or "QRS calls it a white supremacist slogan."
2. I still think we ought to distinguish the trolling campaign -- which used the slogan -- to the controversy over whether (a) being white is okay in the same sense that 'black is beautiful' or (b) any praise of whiteness is racist.

I'm planning on addressing issue #1 first - and if that goes well, perhaps you might join me in writing about issue #2 next. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2024 (UTC)