Talk:Racialist

Please enter into this debate at Talk:Racialism

Hello again. I wanted to ask you what exactly did you mean by usage guide? I'd like to understand you reasoning behind changing that link back into a redirect, and then I'd like a chance to pesuade you otherwise. Finially, assuming I am unssuccessful in changing your opinion, I would like advice from you on where I might contest you opinion ;) In conclusion, I would like to thank you once again for your fine work on cosmotheism. Sam Spade 05:17, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a usage guide, and the old version of racialist did no more than define how the term was used. I chose to redirect it to racism because all meanings of the former term are covered within the latter: sometimes it means what most people think of when they say "racism", and the rest of the time it means something&mdash;"the belief that race is the primary determinant of human capacities"&mdash;that is also covered by another definition of racism. This is why I merged two of the three sentences into racism. (And thanks for the kind words on cosmotheism&mdash;I'm quite proud of that one myself, despite the constant battles to keep Vogel from trashing it). &mdash;No-One Jones 05:26, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Do you mean to say that if it were a better, fuller article, it would be acceptable? Sam Spade 05:31, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I would refer you sam to your handy dictionary.
 * ''racialism

n : discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race [syn: racism] ''

It is no different then racism according to the dictionary. I think Sam has another agenda. GrazingshipIV 05:33, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * Is it distinct enough from the broader term racism to deserve a separate article? id est, are there any meanings or uses of racialism (where this article, if it ever exists, should be) that are not covered by racism? &mdash;No-One Jones 05:37, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

They really are synonims. I think it is covered well enough in racism. Having a seperate page is useless and will most likely created more unecesary controversey as more cyber-racists cause trouble. Which may be the point. GrazingshipIV 05:41, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * No, but the term racism has strong negative connotations, and this term reflects only on a more specific subset of racists, i.e. those trying to look good in this p.c. day and age ;) Besides, they arn't synonyms, and I reject of course the caricature presented by graz. My handy dictionary says . Sam Spade 05:46, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The negative connotations are subject to the reader. You cannot expect us to change a defintition because of what some may view as negative. This is an encyclopedia not an advertising campaign and misinterpretations by the unknowledgable cannot override established definitions. Also your view of political correctness is your POV. My view would be the age of p.c is over, but my view, like yours, is based on my own subjective sense of the culture. GrazingshipIV 06:17, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

racist/racialist
I think it is important to keep in mind the distiction this word makes. The clarifying point is that a racialist isn't trying to hurt anyone, he simply has his opinion, feeling that races are different, and chooses to make decisions based apon that. But he claims that he is no more superior than any other race, and that he is not by this term specifically advocating ill towards another race. In literature I have seen on the subject they always maintain an opposition to jews, and almost all race mixing, but whilst calling themselves racialists they never advocate violence or other ill treatment towards "MUD" people, as they call the majority of racial groups. Sam Spade 05:52, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC

Sam, this is a very weak racial appologist argument. Racialism has prejudicial and discriminatory attitudes towards other races. Racism does not by definition advocate violence. In fact, as has been pointed out they are the same term. There is not some middle ground term you can invent here. Racialism and racism are synonimous-once again racialism n : discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race [syn: racism]. Thats the dictionary definition. Calling others "mud" people is a racist term, there are racist who are pascifists. "Seperate but equal" is a racist/racialist argument. Sorry no dice. GrazingshipIV 05:58, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * All of those meanings are covered by racism, so the answer to my question would seem to be no, there is no ideology implied by racialism which is not covered by racism. These words are not like white separatist and white supremacist, where two similar and sometimes-overlapping terms reflect, when applied honestly, a real difference in ideologies&mdash;racialism and racism are completely-overlapping terms with no significant differences. If the former is just a less-likely-to-offend euphemism for the latter, then we note that in the racism article; a separate page is not necessary. &mdash;No-One Jones 06:05, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * You may also find the Britannica intro instructive: "Racism, also called racialism. . . ." &mdash;No-One Jones 06:07, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

surrender

 * O.K. I retire the debate until someone else brings it back up then ;) Sam Spade 06:09, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm glad we could come to a reasonable consensus on this&mdash;now it remains to be seen what will happen when Vogel or one of his ilk finds this page . . . I have a feeling we'll discover that the term racism is only used by Jewish-Marxist-PC-atheists with "SSEE" in order to besmirch the reputations of honorable racialists like Dr. William Pierce. :-/ &mdash;No-One Jones 06:21, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sam, perhaps you should review your own viewpoint rather than waiting to fight another losing battle here. Your simply wrong on a matter of definition. Perhaps if you want to advance your cause you should do so elsewhere, a place were objective facts are not so easily established. GrazingshipIV 06:23, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)


 * Shut up, you. Sam Spade 03:46, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Racialism was created over a year ago; if there were to be a separate article (which I don't think is necessary) it probably ought to be at that title at any rate. - Hephaestos|&#167; 06:25, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * There are a handful of '-ist' articles, like supremacist and White separatist. Sam Spade 03:46, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I moved those pages, so thats a start, I spose. Sam Spade 03:53, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sam, you and wikipedia would be better served if you stopped trying to advance your beleif system onto it. You believe in it, fine, but stop trying to create nonsense that will justify it with facts. Your significantly outnumbered and wrong. GrazingshipIV 07:08, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * See above. Sam Spade 07:09, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sam, there is a better way to view the world than through the eyes of racism I suggest you stop trying to advance this crazy agenda and edit pages where you can apply whatever knowledge it is you ACTUALLY have. GrazingshipIV 07:16, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)

Here we go again
The article is reinstated, albeit at Racialism so as to parallel Racism. Short form - the term is used, the concept exists. The article should make clear the belief that the concept is a sham, but ignoring it is just wrong. NPOV, NPOV, NPOV. If someone is trying to find out about the difference between racism and racialism, and they type in racialism and get redriected to racism, they're being misled. They're not identical. One may be a disguise for the other - indeed, I think racialism is very thinly veiled racism. But if we're going to push for PC terminology on other things, which is convention, we should also pay heed to what groups we find despicable wish to be called. Snowspinner 20:47, 6 May 2004 (UTC)