What do you think about the scott adams thing?

According to the Rasmussen poll;
53% of Black Americans agree with the statement "It's Okay To Be White"
26% Disagree
21% Not Sure
Which means 47% of Black respondents don't/won't agree that it's ok to be white.

Imagine the uproar over the poll results themselves if the races were reversed. So I'm not really sure who you are calling racists??? Imagine if 47% of White people wouldn't agree with the statement "It's ok to be Asian".

However, after watching part of his video, I wouldn't agree with what he said that Black people are a hate group.

Sorry, but I have to jump in (this is my thread, so I got a notification). This isn't to attack you, this is just to give some advice: You really have to calm down.

This is a public forum. There's no need to pander to or patronize anyone, and I would ask that you not tell others to do that. This is the only reason I commented.

Sure, hi. I think we know who this was, anyway, since this all feels oddly familiar...

So after leaving the room, you come back to declare yourself the winner after coming up with a random number that you say you reached using "mathematical skills". Mind backing that up with how you got that number? While you're at it, you can also explain how you went this long without using a single brain cell, since the answer is so easy to find that even YOU couldn't figure it out before now. Do you frequently argue with people without having any facts?

After you finish, here's the full article from one of the sources that talks about the 100 minimum sample size we *were* arguing about. I highly recommend actually reading it. I'm not saying that to insult you, I'm saying that because it pretty much puts this argument to rest unless you want to dispute the source:
https://tools4dev.org/resources/how-to-choose-a-sample-size/

---separator bar---

You really are going to get outraged about my interpretation, and you're not going to see the irony. I'm going to admit, I wasn't expecting that. I'll talk real slow to you from now on.

What it means to "be white" is open to interpretation. This isn't unique to "white", either. If you don't believe me, ask other people. Open a poll if you need to. You can do one here on IIN. Do a Google search: https://www.google.com/search?q=what+does+it+mean+to+be+white.

I'm on a pedestal because I have talent, thank you for acknowledging both. If you can't handle that because you can't grasp things like "logic" or "proof", that's your problem, not mine. I tried.

He’s living in a bubble insulated from reality. Finally figuring out he was lied to about the poison must have created errors in his programming.

Hating anyone based on the color of their skin is stupid.

No he isn't, he doesn't understand how to read statistics. There's around 47 million black people in the United States. This was a poll of 1000 adults (not all respondents were black). 12% overall said it wasn't okay, 26% of blacks said it wasn't okay.

To put this in perspective, 26% of 1000 is 260. Except not all the respondents were black. If we assume the *only* demographics to vote were just black and white, for 26% of blacks to only bump the overall rate to 12%, the *maximum* there could have been is about 462 people (if my math is right). 26% of 462 is only about 120. Or, if you want to use Scott's logic that "I don't know" means the same thing, then 47% of 462 is about 217.

I'm pretty sure 462 isn't even a viable *minimum* sample size to represent 47,000,000. Skipping straight to playing the victim and "HALF OF ALL BLACKS ARE OUT TO GET ME" is ridiculous. The findings could be completely genuine, it doesn't matter because that's not how statistics work.

TL;DR
This poll means as much as me going to West Virginia and polling 500 white people with a question like "are black people okay", and then using the results to say some percentage of all whites are members of the KKK.

Same, I try to leave arguments where they happened (I only commented how I did over there because it was relevant to the topic of the thread).

They probably wouldn't, no, but she doesn't need to care. Don't pander to them, just block them or ignore that page. Trust me, I've been in the middle of a group of assholes in a chat room, I don't want that to happen to other people. You got a dozen people shouting you down and making fun of you, it's not a good time. Pandering to those kinds of people isn't the answer, though, especially if you're getting heated. It's best to just cool down and disengage in my experience.

Dehumanize yourself and face to bloodshed

I'm glad you have a helmet, and I'm glad you know this is over. If only you could bow out with any dignity. "There's always a margin of error", my goodness, if this topic flew any further over your head, the US government would shoot it down.

Personally I dont care if black people dont think its ok to be white. Thats their prerogative.

So, you don't even have a source.

Weren't you the same guy whining about semantics and pedantry, and now you're hitting me with "most statisticians" and the definition of "any kind of meaningful"? It literally can't be treated within the threshold of acceptable findings *because* of the margin of error-

Ya know what, man, fine. If you want to be scared (your original post said that this is "scary"), I will no longer try to stop you. If you're that concerned that roughly 34 black people somewhere in the US disagree with your existence, please do everything in your power to protect yourself. I suggest a helmet.

In other words, you found a source that said 13% of them were black? At least, I hope that's what you're saying, because otherwise you're going full tilt. What's the source?

Oh man... okay, let me read you the article.
"A good maximum sample size is usually around 10% of the population, as long as this does not exceed 1000."

"Choose a number between the minimum and maximum depending on the situation"

"Choose a number closer to the minimum if:
You only need a rough estimate of the results.
You don’t plan to divide the sample into different groups during the analysis, or you only plan to use a few large subgroups (e.g. males / females).
The decisions that will be made based on the results do not have significant consequences."

"Choose a number closer to the maximum if:
You have the time and money to do it.
It is very important to get accurate results.
You plan to divide the sample into many different groups during the analysis (e.g. different age groups, socio-economic levels, etc).
The decisions that will be made based on the results of the survey are important, expensive or have serious consequences."

Skipping over the later part of the article which talks about margin of error and a larger sample size being necessary to achieve a smaller margin of error because my point's already made. Emphasis on these points:
- The minimum is 100, you are right, but that presents a large margin of error so the results can't be taken seriously. It only presents a rough estimate, so it shouldn't be used for serious decisions. Like hosting a vlog and ending your career.
- The maximum should be used when actual accuracy is important. If the results will have serious consequences, you can't just use 100 people. Or 130.

That article ends with this note about common sense as well:
"So even though it’s theoretically possible to calculate a sample size using a formula, in many cases experts still end up relying rules of thumb plus a good deal of common sense and pragmatism."

Need I say more?

Gotta love the guy that just wants the last word and doesn't want to listen...

My angle was literally brought up in the OP and in my first reply to you. Let me state it again for anyone else reading, since you seem to have skipped over it:

!!!
We don't know how many black people responded to this poll. 462 was the MAXIMUM theoretical number. We don't know the real number. That's not being pedantic, it's addressing the core of your argument. The real number could very well be less than 100, which even you agree would be less than the minimum. We don't know, so any value we come up with is an assumption. I assume I don't have to explain why you can't draw conclusions based off of an assumption.
!!!

---separator bar---

As to the rest of your post, I consider the meaning of the question to be important. I'm not leaning on it; this post could easily end before that separator and I would have already made my point, even if you've already said you refuse to read it. I just think you should understand exactly how little that statement means and how much extra you're reading into it. How about this for an interpretation: "White" isn't an actual race. You have ancestry beyond your skin color, but for some reason we ignore European descent for light-skinned people unless they immigrated recently enough to have an accent. Everyone else gets a prefix put in front of "American", even if they're literally native. Some people know their ancestry or immigrated recently and don't necessarily identify as "white" (much like Africans don't necessarily come here and identify as "black"). The question is asking whether it's okay to identify as "white", the alternative being that you should identify with your particular ancestry, whether that be British, Italian, Irish, etc.

If you read that paragraph and got outraged because you don't see the irony, well that's probably why you left the conversation.

Bringing up history is interesting considerimg you said multiple times that this isn't about violence.

No, my response was to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Don't dismiss it or hide under a rock. Talk to as many black people as you need to, but talk to them. You throwing out that weird fantasy based off my answer is, again, exactly the shit I'm talking about. Live in reality, not in what you THINK is reality.

Your final "response" is, like I thought it would be, effortless. You don't want to talk to any black people, you don't want to address race relations yourself, so why are you even debating this? Why did you even bother asking me that question if you don't care?

The 2400 was from a sample size calculator that let you enter the population. One gave a very high number (that one), another one I used gave me about 370, another one 270, another source suggested 1000. I also only suggested 100 and 500 were too low, since we're talking about a number significantly less than 1000. Take a closer look, I already said multiple times that the participants in this poll were not all black. All of my numbers assumed the maximum possible, but that's unlikely. We have no idea how many black people were actually polled here, so we can't even pretend to interpret the data. It could very well be below 100 people.

"The existence of an entire group" is exactly the shit I was just talking about. You're going on a tangent about your right to exist when the question was "it's okay to be white".

I'm saying the very idea that half of a demographic is questioning your existence is pure fantasy. If they polled a full sample of black people as the focus of the study and got the same results, I would suggest that you walk outside, touch grass, and go directly to your nearest black person to talk to them about it. Instead of sitting around on your vlog talking about it being scary and frightening, maybe try to understand why so many people might have answered the question that way. You don't get to just run and hide from the problem and blame everyone else.

Do a deeper Google search. I got multiple conflicting answers when I did mine, ranging between 100 and 2400. And that's ignoring the common sense of "maybe 100 people doesn't represent the whole country and using the absolute minimum is probably a bad idea."

I'm mainly disputing the idea that you could say "half of all blacks hate whites" based on this. That's why, in my example, I used a vague question like "are black people okay". You can't read that and say "if you answered No, you want to kill blacks." "It's not okay to be white" can mean anything you want it to mean. It can be insulting, but it doesn't imply violence.

And the idea that white people somehow have nothing to do with this is extra strange. Don't get me wrong, I would say the same thing about blacks if the colors were reversed. Race relations are not a one-way street. 12% overall, not just black people, disagreed with that statement.

I’ve said before that the community I live in is mostly black people.

And most black people really don’t like white people. Some have been taught through generations not to trust us. Others learn by watching the media which profits from hatred and separation.

That’s not saying all. And not saying that that doesn’t go for white people too. But some people are brainwashed and fucking radical.

Fuck the man, love your neighbors.