Yes I think I said, it was the Rasmussen poll. Secondly, I don't excuse Dilbert I just understand. There's a big difference between excusing and understanding. I understand how we feels That's what I was talking about. I think most people would agree with that feeling, that is white people and I hate that we even talk about what color we are. I'm not going to say I'm color blind because that's idiotic, but truly, if everyone would just shut up about racism the entire topic would just go away. This is the fault of the mainstream and race hustlers and we need to speak up without fear. When I say we I mean people with the brain, not white people. One of my partners is black and he agrees with me 100%. Now he is just one guy, of course, but the feeling of white privilege is far from monolithic and this idiocy that's pushed by race peddlers just has to come to an end because it's tribalizing our country.
Just for the record as I reread this, I understand that role is how I should have spelled the word as opposed to roll. And then my comment about Jarl Haakon I omitted the most important point which was he was played by a black woman. No, I'm not senile, but sometimes when you look at your own mistake no matter how many times you seem to look at it you never see it until later when you are completely embarrassed! Rock on!
When you go to such lengths to (for lack of a better word) excuse Adams racist rant about an unscientific IVR poll released by a long discredited outlet, that used WS code words, maybe you ought to look inside. Your anectdotal information is interesting but completely contradicted by my own anectdotal experiences. See, I lived in a black neighborhood for four years in Omaha. We were invited to cookouts, hell in the summer, we wouldn't have had to cook but once every third week because that's how frequently our neighbors wanted to share with us.
I've been in the public opinion business for roughly 30 years. I've studied racial issues longitudinally during that time, the racial attitudes survey (which we conduct quarterly, using live callers and verifying information- something Rasmussen doesn't now, nor has ever done) is second only to the abortion attitudes survey in length and depth of responses. Racial attitudes is older, (I started it in 1998) but only got done semi-annually until 2010, while the abortion attitudes started in 2004 and has been done quarterly since then.
And there's good news and bad in the Racial Attitudes. When we started it in 1998 roughly 1 in 3 white Americans expressed overtly racist ideations while about 70% fell into the defensive about racial relations to overtly racist category. In 2021 that's down to 18% and 52% respectively. in 1998, about 1 in 4 black Americans expressed overtly racist ideations while about 80% fell into the defensive about racial relations to overtly racist category. In 2021 that was down to 12% and 60% respectively.
Before you ask, the methodology asks the same 16 questions about race relations and attitudes towards people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds. Then using the answers, the respondents are graded from 1 to 16. 13-16 = expressing overtly racist attitudes, 8-12= defensive.
It isn't completely fair, because black people living pretty typical lives will end up being defensive by answering strongly agree to several questions about racism in policing.
But the reality is, we live different lives. There's a huge difference between Scott Adams having a racist fit because he read about an unscientific IVR poll from a fringe discredited outlet and hell, your own experiences. And if you have a microphone and you start spewing racist shit, you'll end up on the outside looking in, and frankly what Adams said would have resulted in similar actions by the newspapers in 1993 or 1963. What he said is so far outside of the realm of polite discourse and has been for more than a half century, that no thinking editor would decide they wanted to be associated with it.
Yes I think I said, it was the Rasmussen poll. Secondly, I don't excuse Dilbert I just understand. There's a big difference between excusing and understanding. I understand how we feels That's what I was talking about. I think most people would agree with that feeling, that is white people and I hate that we even talk about what color we are. I'm not going to say I'm color blind because that's idiotic, but truly, if everyone would just shut up about racism the entire topic would just go away. This is the fault of the mainstream and race hustlers and we need to speak up without fear. When I say we I mean people with the brain, not white people. One of my partners is black and he agrees with me 100%. Now he is just one guy, of course, but the feeling of white privilege is far from monolithic and this idiocy that's pushed by race peddlers just has to come to an end because it's tribalizing our country.
Just for the record as I reread this, I understand that role is how I should have spelled the word as opposed to roll. And then my comment about Jarl Haakon I omitted the most important point which was he was played by a black woman. No, I'm not senile, but sometimes when you look at your own mistake no matter how many times you seem to look at it you never see it until later when you are completely embarrassed! Rock on!
When you go to such lengths to (for lack of a better word) excuse Adams racist rant about an unscientific IVR poll released by a long discredited outlet, that used WS code words, maybe you ought to look inside. Your anectdotal information is interesting but completely contradicted by my own anectdotal experiences. See, I lived in a black neighborhood for four years in Omaha. We were invited to cookouts, hell in the summer, we wouldn't have had to cook but once every third week because that's how frequently our neighbors wanted to share with us.
I've been in the public opinion business for roughly 30 years. I've studied racial issues longitudinally during that time, the racial attitudes survey (which we conduct quarterly, using live callers and verifying information- something Rasmussen doesn't now, nor has ever done) is second only to the abortion attitudes survey in length and depth of responses. Racial attitudes is older, (I started it in 1998) but only got done semi-annually until 2010, while the abortion attitudes started in 2004 and has been done quarterly since then.
And there's good news and bad in the Racial Attitudes. When we started it in 1998 roughly 1 in 3 white Americans expressed overtly racist ideations while about 70% fell into the defensive about racial relations to overtly racist category. In 2021 that's down to 18% and 52% respectively. in 1998, about 1 in 4 black Americans expressed overtly racist ideations while about 80% fell into the defensive about racial relations to overtly racist category. In 2021 that was down to 12% and 60% respectively.
Before you ask, the methodology asks the same 16 questions about race relations and attitudes towards people of different racial and ethnic backgrounds. Then using the answers, the respondents are graded from 1 to 16. 13-16 = expressing overtly racist attitudes, 8-12= defensive.
It isn't completely fair, because black people living pretty typical lives will end up being defensive by answering strongly agree to several questions about racism in policing.
But the reality is, we live different lives. There's a huge difference between Scott Adams having a racist fit because he read about an unscientific IVR poll from a fringe discredited outlet and hell, your own experiences. And if you have a microphone and you start spewing racist shit, you'll end up on the outside looking in, and frankly what Adams said would have resulted in similar actions by the newspapers in 1993 or 1963. What he said is so far outside of the realm of polite discourse and has been for more than a half century, that no thinking editor would decide they wanted to be associated with it.