Hear hear. To those of us who eschew racial identity politics and tribalism, both statements sound pretty abhorrent - whether taken literally or culturally. Literally is insulting as it is stating the darn obvious... almost by stating it, it raises questions about its validity. And reading it culturally does the same thing - to my mind - only at a more meaningful level. This was my initial reaction to the blm slogan - it felt demeaning to me. As does "it's ok to be white". Where racism still happens, in whatever form, let's fight it together.
Maybe I'm being too cynical, but I think that the Rasmussen Report wants their survey to be somewhat ambiguous. It's a news website, selling subscriptions.
If they phrased it as "Do you agree or disagree with the statement: Having white skin does not make people intrinsically bad or inferior." , I doubt the survey results would generate much traffic; that probably wouldn't generate as much outrage.
There were two things foremost in my mind before I went into this:-
1. There's a difference between "Black Lives Matter" and "black lives matter", the same as with "Antifa" and "antifa"; and
2. The support for, and pushback against, all of this is a heady mix of those who don't understand the cultural significance and those who do, with a percentage of racists and trolls along with way.
And you've covered those points nicely.
It's likely to be a complicated and convoluted effort to disentangle the racists and trolls from the responses, as there's no other data to go on other than online experience, and as we all know, this is determined by our echo chambers. Many people I read don't appear to distinguish between nouns and terms either, or at least do so in ways I can't divine their intent from, making it doubly hard to understand.
Survey questions need to be asked in specific ways in order to garner honest, unbiased responses, something I do not trust Rasmussen to do when it doesn't suit them. I don't particularly feel like signing up to them either.
Hear hear. To those of us who eschew racial identity politics and tribalism, both statements sound pretty abhorrent - whether taken literally or culturally. Literally is insulting as it is stating the darn obvious... almost by stating it, it raises questions about its validity. And reading it culturally does the same thing - to my mind - only at a more meaningful level. This was my initial reaction to the blm slogan - it felt demeaning to me. As does "it's ok to be white". Where racism still happens, in whatever form, let's fight it together.
Maybe I'm being too cynical, but I think that the Rasmussen Report wants their survey to be somewhat ambiguous. It's a news website, selling subscriptions.
If they phrased it as "Do you agree or disagree with the statement: Having white skin does not make people intrinsically bad or inferior." , I doubt the survey results would generate much traffic; that probably wouldn't generate as much outrage.
Nope, I think so too.
There were two things foremost in my mind before I went into this:-
1. There's a difference between "Black Lives Matter" and "black lives matter", the same as with "Antifa" and "antifa"; and
2. The support for, and pushback against, all of this is a heady mix of those who don't understand the cultural significance and those who do, with a percentage of racists and trolls along with way.
And you've covered those points nicely.
It's likely to be a complicated and convoluted effort to disentangle the racists and trolls from the responses, as there's no other data to go on other than online experience, and as we all know, this is determined by our echo chambers. Many people I read don't appear to distinguish between nouns and terms either, or at least do so in ways I can't divine their intent from, making it doubly hard to understand.
Survey questions need to be asked in specific ways in order to garner honest, unbiased responses, something I do not trust Rasmussen to do when it doesn't suit them. I don't particularly feel like signing up to them either.