Oh what the hell, I'll find some sources.
Ipsos poll
Obvious racists: 3% to 16%
All races are equal: Strongly disagree 4%, Somewhat disagree 3%
All races should be treated equally: Strongly disagree 1%, Somewhat disagree 2%
Marriage should only be allowed between people of the same race. Strongly agree 10%, Somewhat agree 6%
You don't like this poll? Feel free to supply your own.
I don't find that the poll was relevant to the question.
You questioned why I thought racism was essentially dead as a movement until the media recently brought it back to life. It's because of things like the massive decline of organizations like the KKK. Going from millions of followers openly influencing state, local and even federal government, to less than 10,000 followers with virtually no political power, openly reviled by everyone, and fired from any jobs they get if their connections become public (one of Antifa's public services is doxxing anyone that is a (or that they believe) is a racist).
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/ku-klux-klanI also recall, but can't locate, a CNN chart that was on the Rachel Maddow show that reflected the actual level of racists by political party from a few years back, where on air they claimed it showed Republican racism, yet, the chart showed pretty clearly that the amount of white racists in the two parties were about equal. Not citing it to start the political debate, but only because they were looking to maximize the numbers and they were (from memory) under 1% for each party. Let's be honest, other kinds of racism have been increasing but that's not what anyone is concerned about.
I don't have ton of confidence in an online poll such as the Ipsos one you cited to. They can't even calculate expected error, and don't use random sampling.
In any event, Antifa is again - a cell based organization - that means secrecy is about who is in the organization is part of the MO. That would mean you would be very unlikely to know that an acquantence is a member.
Not the quality of something I'd rely on, but given you seemingly want "numbers of citations" rather than quality of input, here's a large write up from the scary side of what Antifa is.
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/01/antifa-charlottesville-violence-fbi-242235Scale. Antifa is massive, white nationalists are tiny.
12% of respondents said they know someone in Antifa. White nationalists? 13% This is with 2,225 Democrats, 1,915 Republicans, and 689 independents.
The Southern Law Poverty Center counts out the number of "hate groups" rather than the numbers of members, and they do this for a reason. It's very difficult to determine exactly how many people are white nationalists, and I have not convincing evidence on actual numbers in quite a while. In my view, that's largely because the actual numbers were too unthreatening to maintain the "threat." I mean, the SLPC saying that there are 600 hate groups, is a lot scarier than saying there are 10k or even 100k white nationlists in a country of 350million. Meanwhile, it's similarly difficult to count the size of Antifa, but it's not remotely difficult to see the difference in tolerance.
Or you could just acknowledge that after decades of decline, from millions to a few thousands, after the increased coverage they are apparently increasing in numbers. SLPC says that white and black hate groups have been increasing over the last 2 years, not clear though whether the two groups follow the same trend (over the last few decades the pro-white groups have tended to be fairly small, and I don't have an info on the pro-black ones or the newest white ones). SLPC steadfastedly refuses to track Antifa (again, because the left openly tolerates them no matter how terroristic they become).
As to why I think the support is different, your own survey, flawed though it is, shows that the "opposition" to Antifa is only 39%. That may reflect that those surveyed are confused about who they are, which may be why the "Alt Right" isn't as opposed as the neo nazis or white nationalists, notwithstanding they are fairly similar ideological. I think the numbers show a high level of disengagement by survey participants, where 52% "don't know" or "neither support or oppose" Antifa and 42% have the same response on the Alt Right.
I have a serious question. I do not mean to be disrespectful, but in order have meaningful communication, I would like to have a better understanding of your thinking process.
Do you do research before you publish your comments? You sound very confident of your statements, and you appear to be very knowledgeable in general, so readers are inclined to take you at your word.
And you wonder why I think you're a troll. So to translate, you mean to be insulting and disrespectful, so you'll start your statement with the rhetorical equivalent of "I'm not a racist but...."
Do I research every sentence immediately prior to posting it? No. Before a typical post, have I read dozens to hundreds of articles, reports and studies on a topic prior to posting? Yes.
Do I flag my opinions as opinions, often, maybe even usually. Do I state things a facts that I don't have a reasonable basis to believe? Almost never, and almost always only by accident. Do I respond to good faith requests for more information - yes. Do I respond to bad faith ones where the poster is only attempting to undermine my credibility so that he can score a rhetorical point without doing the work? Only if I feel like it.
Meanwhile, I'd like to point out that using a rhetorical trick to claim that which someone else does not support is
disproven is just that, a trick. Whether I choose to provide a citation has no bearing on whether what I said is a fact or not.
I already know that you've rarely done the homework yourself, that's why you just tell me to prove it and the
act like you proven the contrary.
If this is just an opportunity for you to confidently state your opinion, then I have no issue. Opine to your heart's content. But please make that clear so we can treat it as such.
"we"? Who's the "we" to which you refer?
Like everyone on a message board, the comments are opinions, even when they are informed by facts. Intelligent people who disagree about whether the better plan is to increase welfare or decrease welfare to help the poor, are not often disagreeing about the facts, they are usually disagreeing about their relative importance, about their interpretation and mostly about what will happen with them going forward.
And please note that "My opinion is that Antifa is massive compared to white nationalism" doesn't make sense, since that is not really a matter of opinion, but rather a matter of mathematics.)
No that's just a mess, and a strawman. The problem of Antifa is massive compared to the problem of white nationlism, and that's specifically because the first is tolerated by those on the left, while the latter is repugnant to both the left and the right. Violence in politics should be something that all good people oppose, not something that leads to some people arguing that the victims deserved it in a country that values free speech.
As to the math point, the number of white nationlists and the number of antifa are facts, whether there's anything but a guess by an "expert" is not something that seems to be the case. It is my opinion, based on extensive reading that Antifa is bigger in raw numbers. It is a fact that they are tolerated by a larger part of the population.
If you claim your statements to be fact, then I will continue to research them and point out when they are not. Nothing personal, as long as there are no personal attacks on me.
If might more productive to a discussion if you actually think you've found a false claim that I've made to put the evidence out there. I think you rarely fail to make personal attacks, but you are always quick to claim the high road and claim you are not.
I've noted you seem to be an extremely black and white thinker. You find a cite that seems to agree with you and declare the matter settled as if it's unimpeachable, with the only medium of argument that you accept another random citation - that you then gleefully tear apart (only other people's sources have credibility problems). It's the kind of thing that's made me occasionally want to publish on a topic so I can cite to it later.
It seems that the best way to post is to make factual statements with sources, and then state opinions clearly as such. Stating facts without sources, and having it turn out that they are completely wrong seems like a very inefficient way to have a discussion. Just my opinion.
I am willing to cite to things that I think are difficult to find, or that I happen to have read recently. I'm not willing to dig for articles that I've accrued over decades of education, or try and unwind search engine bias to find things that have substantial time lags since they were published. Nor is it remotely reasonable to ask someone to do so. Lucky for you I'm rarely wrong on remembered facts.
Like I said, I'm willing to look for sources to clarify confusion or to correct misunderstandings. I'm less willing to waste my time to respond to unnecessary demands made solely as an agrumental tactic.
Please let me know your thoughts.
My thought is that you're still trolling. You almost always make a personal attack rather than a response to the argument put forward. You routinely pretend like a lack of citation is proof of the opposite conclusion, where at best there's no logical inference from a lack of citation. You almost never ask for any clarification in good faith, for example, I've never once seen you say, I did some research on this point, and I think "x".
You also routinely fail to differentiate between a fact in question and an entire argument, which compounds your habit of believing that you can assume the negative of any statement of fact with which you disagree (usually without any basis).