I suspect that the poll likely says more about how people interpret the word "ok" in the moment and about what definition of "racist" they prefer than about their opinions of white or black people.

It's not the clearest question, agree. And that's before you know or suspect its origin.

If the poll meaning is "Are you aware that racists use this slogan", then it does not seem to be asked in good will. One could as well ask questions "Do you agree that 'Slava Ukraini'" (Glory to Ukraine) "Do you agree that 'Heroiam slava'" (Glory to heroes). And then the answer may be either interpreted as support for Russian aggression or support for Volhynia massacre, as "Slava Ukraini hieroiam slava" was a slogan of OUN-B, the perpetrators.

A statistically neutral sampling population would be a huge assumption.

Given the context of question 2, it seems to be asking questions to garner a "Can someone be racist against people with white skin?" and not "Do you support White Supremacism?" as it plays to a common fallacy of "There is no racism against a racial majority."

@phoog I also suggest that the use of "OK" is associated with the "OK" sign which has now been "identified" as a white supremacy symbol.

@hszmv Do you define "majority" as "those who have near complete economic, social and military control of an area", or "the more common people"? "Structural Racism against a population that dominates everyone with economic, military and social oppression is not a problem" is a perfectly sensible statement. If you then split racism into prejudice and racism, where you use racism for the structural phenomena and prejudice for non-structural, the result sort of follows.

"the same questions asked by a different polling organization would presumably elicit roughly the same answers" - perhaps, but this does not mean other organizations would actually have asked the question in the exact same way with the same surrounding questions. How you contextualise and phrase questions make a big difference to how people answer.

@hszmv I define majority "as largest grouping in a given population by a given category" and Racism "as bigotry against a person because of their ethnic background." Prejudice is "a preconceived expectation of an outcome or predilection to a personal preference." Your definition of prejudice neglects that one can have a prejudice for something, where racism is exclusively prejudice against something (I.E. Picking a flavor of ice cream is prejudicial as I assume that Pineapple is more pleasurable to my taste buds as opposed to Mint Chocolate Chip.).

The poll question is meant to be literal, it's to see how many people dislike whites. And as a black person I definitely see the normalization of it.

@Yakk I dont think "structural racism" against anyone would ever be sensible. And we can't distinguish between racism and prejudice. Racism is racial prejudice

@Amon I mean, thoughtco.com/racism-vs-prejudice-3026086 pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-experts-02-02.htm a lot of people use it differently. And Rassmussen is a politically biased polling agency; presuming its purpose is innocent is a bit of a stretch? Given that Rassmussen was asking, one should assume the purpose of the question was to use a known white supremacist catch phrase, ask black people if they agreed with it, then use the result to make black people look bad and white supremacists look good.

@Yakk how people use it is irrelevant, we have definitions for a reason. And the people using it in the way you want are politically motivated. And the reason they're doing that is so they can create more racial division. saying black people can't be racist is ludicrous. I didn't say they're innocent, the intentions don't matter. It's hardly a "known" WS catchphrase. The purpose of it was to literally see if black people thought it was okay to be white, not to see if black people are white supremacists lol

racism: " : a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race" - merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism It's that simple

@Amon Words are defined by how they are used. Dictionaries collect how people use words, and list them. They don't define what words mean. That is how language works. It is great to agree with someone on the meaning of words, but when you are arguing that their point is wrong because of how YOU define THEIR words, you are doing it wrong.

@Yakk And people generally don't use the term that way, you don't get to conveniently change the meaning of a word to fit your political agenda lmao. We've all agreed on what these words mean, now because some of you people want to push an agenda you want to change the rules. Doesn't work like that, you can use it how you want. but you should prob stick to "structural racism"

@Yakk, I didn't argue that I interpreted "Rasmusen's words" wrong. I argued that I made a logical inference into the nature of their questions based on the context of the words they used in multiple questions. You are the one that implied that the poll was specifically designed to "make black people look bad" by it's arrangement. If that was the case, then 53% of African Americans did not take the bait and agreed with the statement. And the article in question is paywalled so we can't read the results of question 2 without paying for it.

@Amon it's to see how many people dislike whites. That might have been a valid, if incendiary poll. But this was a crap question to use. Due to (some) lack of clarity and it corresponding exactly to a white supremacist slogan. Something like "Are most white people racist?" would have limited to Q to racism - a well understood dictionary term, yes, with a negative connotation. Not material well-being. Using "most" avoids the absoluteness of "all" - which torpedoed their other Q - and the wishy-washyness of "many". Saying "they don't like us" is std white supremacist fare, FWIW.

@Yakk But I doubt the results of question 2 will reflect a majority understanding of the definition of "racism" to meet your definition.

@ItalianPhilosophers4Monica Its not some well known white supremacist slogan lol. If that's the case then that means 50% of black people are white supremacists because they agree with it. youre vastly overestimating it. The reality most people probably read it literally. its not as if the results would be different if they asked "is it acceptable to be white"

@hszmv Any answer makes "black people look bad". Either they agree with a white supremist slogan, or they disagree with a slogan and that disagreement can be framed as they are the problem. The only winning move was not to answer the question. That was the POINT of asking that question.

@Amon you're not getting the stats right. Say you ask a Q that asks "are white people bad?". Out of that 70% of Blacks say, no they are not. 10% don't know and 20% yes. OK. Now, let's say that 15% of respondents are told that it corresponds to WS talking point. Numbers change to 60 no, 15% dunno and 25% yes (bad white ppl). Does that mean that 60% agreed with the WS? It does not. It does mean that the 15% of awareness shifted the numbers around quite a bit. If it's administered online, as another answer claims, you'd even more scope of Googling it up because it sounds WShy.

@hszmv Sure; I'm not saying that is the only definition of "racism". I'm saying it is a definition of racism in current use. And if they are using that definition, the statement makes sense. Claiming it is nonsense requires you to force someone else to use your preferred definition, aka rhetorical nonsense based arguments. This can go both ways, of course; I can also play games with saying X, saying "but it doesn't mean what I say, I meant Y" in order to hide being a git in "plain sight".

@Ita Re: your answer, does agreeing with a generically true phrase = endorsement of the groups that have used it before, especially if it's been used as a dogwhistle or purposefully chosen to be innocently true? If the Literal Baby Eaters had the meme phrase "humans require water to live" associated with them, I'd still mark "agree" on a poll that asked "Do humans require water to live?" I don't know what I'd call this sort of thing; maybe a Trojan Horse Fallacy? A purposefully-innocuous, unobjectionable idea that serves as a foot in the door to further, more extreme or untenable arguments.

@ItalianPhilosophers4Monica What are you talking about? If they KNEW it was WS slogan and voted YES, that would mean they supported it, and that number was 50%. Look at the ADL link. it can't even substantiate how "big" this white supremacist movement is. It just said some people made some posters 5 years ago to troll. You're completely making this up. That slogan isn't as big as you think it is, it's some damn 4chan trolling campaign

@Amon google up all the hits for this phrase with a stop date before Feb 2023. Then tell me no one knows the term. Besides, if I were to walk around and see people with similar wording on their signs, I'd suspect WS and roll my eyes. Just like I roll my eyes at the CBC's determination to use colonialism at every opportunity. It's a dogwhistle, plain and simple.

@CharlesDuffy I'm black, and I'm not sure what magical skill you're referring to that would grant us the ability to know that phrase. The link that posted in this answer doesnt even substantiate it as being well known, I just makes the claim that WS use it. So it's up to YOU to prove it is, since ideas start off as unknown by most.

@ItalianPhilosophers4Monica you can google ANY TERM and hits will come up are you kidding? The ADL THEMSELVES can't even substantiate your claim. I just googled it and the most recent articles are from 2018, almost FIVE years ago. One of them referencing an okay symbol. This is RIDICULOUS

@Amon since you have another perspective feel free to write an answer.

@AosSidhe I believe its officially called "Associative Fallacy" which holds that something is guilty by association with a bad thing OR something is honorable by association with a good thing. A prime example is "Everything Hitler supported is evil. Hitler is a dog lover. Therefore, anyone who loves dogs is evil." This is not true because at the same point in time, the President FDR famously owned a beloved dog, and opposed Hitler. Or the many billions of people who own dogs and do not support genocide.

@hszmv That's the fallacy for guilt by association, true, which is what I feel is happening in deeming it a racist statement. But I was asking more about the use of "it's okay to be white" as a rhetorical device for racists; it's like a reverse Motte-and-Bailey, where instead of asserting a controversial stance and retreating to a defensible one, they put forth an innocuous or vacuously true statement as a primer or as synecdoche for a stronger argument that may be only implied. It's also like a reverse strawman, where one portrays their position as much less controversial than it really is.

@Yakk But that's not true, because there are people who can say "it's okay to be white AND it's okay to be black." Just because white supremacists say the former but not the latter, it does not mean that all people who say the former do not believe the latter. If it's wrong to say black people are lesser because of their skin color, than it must be wrong to say that white people are lesser because of their skin color too. Or more succinctly, nobody should make people feel inferior because of skin color. Fun fact: Many forms of racism are not over skin color alone.

@AosSidhe Or a catch 22... it's a being held as a racial equivalent of "Have you stopped beating your wife today?" There's also a logical fallacy in saying that "It's Okay to be white" is something a White supremacist would say, there go saying it means you are a white supremacists. I expect white supremacist to support that statement because it's in the name. I don't expect them to agree with any variation of the phrase being subbed in, which is characteristic of someone who holds that racism is hatred of a person because of their ethnic origins.

@hszmv What is "that" that is not true? "It is Ok to be White" is a white supremacist slogan. It is widely used by white supremacists. There is plenty of documentation about this. It is mainly used either by white supremacists, or by people repeating a slogan they heard popularized by white supremacists. It is true that there could be a person who never heard it and randomly arranged words together into that pattern and read it out loud with no connection to them; but such people are going to be extremely rare. As a slogan, it is designed to sound reasonable while pushing racism.

@hszmv This is true regardless of why they are repeating a white supremacist slogan, or why they agree with it.

" As a slogan, it is designed to sound reasonable while pushing racism." No, it is not. There is no racism being pushed here. Suggesting that other people are racially oppressing you is not racist, even if you're wrong about it. On the other hand, arguing - as many academics do - that someone's race represents a cultural construct rooted in feelings of supremacy, certainly is racist.

@AosSidhe It is not such a primer or synecdoche. It is instead a critique of a cultural phenomenon whereby the opposite claim seems to be deemed acceptable. I know this because I have witnessed the message resonate with many people who I know not to be racist.

"Any answer makes "black people look bad". Either they agree with a white supremist slogan" Putting aside all the other disagreements for the moment, why would this make them look bad? The slogan is not the same thing as the underlying message. If I were to state agreement that "Black Lives Matter", that wouldn't constitute me endorsing the actions of BLM protesters, either.

"often adding Internet links to white supremacist websites to the fliers or combining the phrase with white supremacist language or imagery." - As far as I've been able to tell, from examples I've seen both personally and photographed in media coverage, the ADL simply made that part up. (I also don't understand what Adams' support of Trump has to do with the question. It comes across as an attempt to put "everything I don't like" in one box.)

@hszmv It's also a fallacy to dismiss a statement because it's fallacious. Like just because not every association is a relevant association e.g. "Hitler's dog" there can still be relevant associations, like if a group of perpetrators uses slogans, catchphrases, uniforms and other symbols to signal association and strength in numbers. So that doing so as well signal boosts and at least passively supports that group.

@AosSidhe "Too much information"? Like "Asbestos free tomatoes". Like it's an innocuous statement, but then again it's so bland and unnecessary that you ask yourself "why did they feel the need to even say that in the first place".

@hszmv The problem is that racism is both used for the structural and/or systemic discrimination of people as well as for individual prejudice and malice. The former is pretty one sided against black people, the latter is probably equal under normal circumstances or might even be opposite as the recipient of malice might be more cautious of people being malicious. So when talk comes up about systemic racism, racists and profiteers make it personal.

@Yakk So then, you disagree with the language because white supremicists agree with it. Can you rephrase the question in such a way that the neutral intent of the message remains? Again, the ADL has provided no evidence of their accusation. Burden of proof is on he who accuses. Even the cited source holds that the majority of African Americans support the message OR gave pause (implying they knew that they were trying to avoid the trap. A small minority disagree.

@haxor789 Accept that you forget that in the 19th century, hate groups like the KKK also hated Catholics and Irish equally. Literature from the time referred to the Irish as "White [N-words]" and there were signs hung in many a business that read "No Irish need apply." At either rate, the root cause is that the systemic hatred is caused by the indvidual hatred, not the reverse. Which is why I reject it in any form. Racism is a disease that ironically does not discriminate in who it sickens

@hszmv "Except". Also afaik the slave trade, slavery and the whole racism and superiority/inferiority bullshit were systemic narratives. You don't need hatred for discrimination if everyone and everything around you told you it's fine, when it's not. The hatred is rather a response to people "not knowing their place" so when the "inferior" suddenly demand equality and you either have to face that you or your ancestors fucked up or you know hate them for reminding you with their existence.

@hszmv But sure it can go both ways, individual malice and manifest in systemic racism (if that individual is in a position of power) and systemic racism can foster individual malice. But usually systemic racism should be easier to talk about because people don't need to be personally offended and emotional. Which is all the more insidious when it's made personal to shut it down.

@haxor789 I tend to believe a lot of it is cultural misunderstandings that lead to hatred and an ingroup vs. outgroup mentality (If you look at non-European cultures, they aren't immune to racism either and did similar things). Xenophobia leads to policies that protect an ingroup at the expense of an outgroup.

@haxor789 But I can tell you for certain fact, that my family never participated in American Slavery because, save for my native American ancestors, none of my ancestors came to America prior to 1865. It wasn't until my grandparent's generation that we had anyone in the family in elected office, and they ran on pro-civil rights policies.

@haxor789 And while I do have some racist relatives who are still alive, it's mostly due to the fact that they use words that were once socially acceptable but are now very offensive and are uncomfortable interacting with people of other races (when they absolutely have to, they are usually polite about it) and they have been trying to get better (key word being trying...) mostly because they know the rest of the family are embarrassed by them.