Support NeoGAF

[Antiochus]

Much has been made about just how tolerant(or intolerant) American society has become towards free speech and hate speech over the past year, especially after Trump's rise. Although college students have been the focus for much of that debate, rarely has there been recent polling done on the general public on this issue for the past year. Now YouGov and the libertarian Cato Institute have a commissioned a broad poll doing just that on the general American public. One of The Atlantic magazine's journalists, Conor Frierdersdorf, have managed to take a preliminary look at the results:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...eek-at-new-survey-data-on-free-speech/542028/

Some of the results summarize below are rather......extremely counterintuitive

That choice kicked off a lengthy survey on free speech and tolerance that will be released later this month by The Cato Institute, which collaborated with YouGov, the market research firm, to collect responses. The final data set was drawn from answers to scores of questions provided by 2,300 people. I got an early look at the survey this month when the institute invited me to Washington, D.C., for a panel discussion on the results. (Cato paid my travel expenses as part of my appearance on the panel. My decision to write about the survey’s findings was not part of our agreement.)

An overwhelming majority of Americans believe that “it would be hard to ban hate speech because people can’t agree what speech is hateful,” including 78 percent of Democrats, 77 percent of Latinos, and 59 percent of African Americans. And the notion that “freedom of speech ensures the truth will ultimately win out” was shared by 70 percent of Latinos, 68 percent of African Americans, and 63 percent of Democrats.

Yet a majority of Americans and a supermajority of African Americans believe that “society can prohibit hate speech and still protect free speech.” (To complicate matters, a quarter of Americans, 38 percent of African Americans, and 45 percent of Latinos erroneously believe it is already illegal to make a racist statement in public.)

Forty-seven percent of Latinos, 41 percent of African Americans, and 26 percent of whites would favor a law making it illegal to say offensive things about white people in public.

Should there be a law making it illegal to say offensive or disrespectful things in public about the police? Fifty-one percent of Latinos say yes. So do 40 percent of African Americans, 38 percent of Democrats, and 36 percent of both independents and Republicans.

Fifty-one percent of Democrats would favor a law “requiring people to refer to a transgender person by their preferred gender pronouns and not according to their biological sex.” Majorities of African Americans, Latinos, whites, and Republicans disagreed.

Republicans were most intolerant of speech and most likely to favor authoritarian laws to punish it on the subject of burning or desecrating the American flag: Seventy-two percent of Republicans believe that should be illegal (along with 46 percent of Democrats). Most shocking to me, 53 percent of Republicans and 49 percent of Latinos favor “stripping a person of their U.S. citizenship if they burn the American flag.” To protect the flag at the expense of the U.S. Constitution rather misses the point.

On the whole, Americans were averse to firing people from their jobs for holding an offensive belief. Should a business executive be fired if he believes African Americans are genetically inferior? Fifty-three percent of Americans, and 51 percent of African Americans, said no. And that was the belief most likely to be seen as termination-worthy (except among Republicans: More Republicans were inclined to fire an NFL player who refused to stand for the national anthem than a racist executive).
Large majorities oppose firing an executive who believes that transgender people have a mental disorder, or that homosexuality is a sin, or that all white people are racist, or that men are better at math than women; 74 percent oppose firing an executive who believes, pace James Damore, the fired Google engineer, that psychological differences help to explain why there are more male than female engineers.

Perhaps the most astounding result from the poll (??!!!!)

Is it morally acceptable to punch a Nazi?
Sixty-eight percent say no––and contrary to those who argue that opposition to punching Nazis is rooted in white privilege, it turns out that Latinos are most averse to Nazi-punching, with 80 percent calling it unacceptable; African Americans are next, with 73 percent calling it unacceptable; and white people are last, with just 56 percent agreeing. Republicans are slightly more likely to find Nazi-punching acceptable than Democrats, 35 percent to 28 percent. Forty-five percent of independents say it’s acceptable.

It seems likely the term "political correctness" probably has very different meanings for different racial groups.

Large majorities agree that “a big problem this country has is being politically correct,” including 70 percent of Latinos, 62 percent of African Americans, and 72 percent of whites.

When asked, “Suppose the following people were invited to speak at your college, should they be allowed to speak?” respondents who were college students or had college experience answered “no,” various viewpoints should not be allowed, as follows:
A speaker who advocates for violent protests (81 percent)
A speaker who plans to publicly reveal the names of illegal immigrants attending the college (65 percent)
A speaker who says the Holocaust did not occur (57 percent)
A speaker who says all white people are racist (51 percent)
A speaker who says Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to come to the U.S. (50 percent)
A speaker who advocates conversion therapy for gays and lesbians (50 percent)
A speaker who says transgender people have a mental disorder (50 percent)
A speaker who publicly criticizes and disrespects the police (49 percent)
A speaker who says that all Christians are backwards and brainwashed (49 percent)
A speaker who says the average IQ of whites and Asians is higher than African Americans and Hispanics (48 percent)
A speaker who says the police are justified in stopping African Americans at higher rates than other groups (48 percent)
A person who says all illegal immigrants should be deported (41 percent)
A speaker who says men on average are better at math than women (40 percent)

Needless to day this YouGov and Cato Institute poll should be closely watched and it's methodology thoroughly dissected when it is released later this month.

 

[kirblar]

Perhaps the most astounding result from the poll (??!!!!)

That one isn't. The people most likely to suffer if social norms regarding violence decay are those minorities.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

That one isn't. The people most likely to suffer if social norms regarding violence decay are those minorities.

This is my main point. Setting aside that I do believe in a Millian marketplace of ideas and that it is possible to beat reprehensible ideas in nonviolent ways, on what planet is it a good idea to cheer vigilante political violence? Are people unaware of what a Pandora's box that is? America already looks not unlike the late Roman Republic in terms of growing political instability, do we want to embrace every possible parallel?

 

[Lumination]

Republicans are slightly more likely to find Nazi-punching acceptable than Democrats, 35 percent to 28 percent.

Probably looking too much into this, but hopefully the schism in the right is slowly forming.

 

[WaffleTaco]

Why are you publishing Cato poll results?

 

[Sadsic]

btw Cato Institute is a Koch brothers think tank - really conservative/libertarian leaning

 

[Slayven]

btw Cato Institute is a Koch brothers think tank - really conservative/libertarian leaning

No wonder my spidey sense was tingling

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

btw Cato Institute is a Koch brothers think tank - really conservative/libertarian leaning

This is true, but they may just have fronted the money; YouGov is historically pretty decent. We'll have to look at the methodology, when it's available.

Republicans being more likely to support punching neo-Nazis is actually unsurprising to me, I'd say they probably have a lower threshold for violence's acceptability in general, hence their willingness to beat the drum of war.

 

[Antiochus]

Why are you publishing Cato poll results?

Because the results are fascinating. More fascinating, however, would be their methodology. When the full poll is released, this topic will be updated to reflect that

 

[entremet]

Why are you publishing Cato poll results?

Shouldn't matter. It's a poll. It's not specifically policy advocacy.

You'd have a better point if this was some paper arguing for something, then we would know why.

 

[royalan]

That one isn't. The people most likely to suffer if social norms regarding violence decay are those minorities.

This.

You're not going to convince a minority whose recent cultural history is drenched in violence that violence is the answer.

 

[Ogodei]

Cato's a bit more respected than hacks like the Heritage Foundation, though they are right leaning.

 

[WaffleTaco]

Because the results are fascinating. More fascinating, however, would be their methodology. When the full poll is released, this topic will be updated to reflect that

I simply do not trust anything that they are doing, because they would not fund something if there was not a way to push it in their direction.

Shouldn't matter. It's a poll. It's not specifically policy advocacy.

You'd have a better point if this was some paper arguing for something, then we would know why.

Anything connected via the Cock Brothers is suspect.

 

[Maridia]

Because the results are fascinating. More fascinating, however, would be their methodology. When the full poll is released, this topic will be updated to reflect that

Anecdotally, they're regarded as being reliable and sound of methodology, anyway.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

Free speech issues feel like one of those things that depend heavily on how you phrase the questions. I would definitely be interested in seeing their methology here, although their results aren't too surprising.

 

[Slayven]

This.

You're not going to convince a minority whose recent cultural history is drenched in violence that violence is the answer.

At lets be honest ANTIFA isn't some PoC shit.

 

[Stumpokapow]

The author, who admits to being paid [although he assures you that he happens to agree with Cato independently and would write about the results even were he not paid], gets a one month early look at a set of survey results which just so happen to agree strongly with his predisposition as well as the predisposition of the organization who commissioned the survey, provides no notes about methodology whatsoever, and won't make even the top-line data available because it was made available to him under a paid sneak peek.

Anecdotally, they're regarded as being reliable and sound of methodology, anyway.

You don't need to be "unreliable" or "unsound" for something like this to happen. YouGov is a client producing spec work for Cato, who chooses how and if to report the results. This might reflect reality; it might reflect sampling decisions; it might reflect leading language in the survey; it might reflect selective reporting of results; it might reflect doing more than one survey and reporting the most agreeable set of results; it might reflect any number of things.

Shouldn't matter. It's a poll. It's not specifically policy advocacy.

bahahahaah

 

[trebbble]

Shouldn't matter. It's a poll. It's not specifically policy advocacy.

You'd have a better point if this was some paper arguing for something, then we would know why.

Of course it matters. We know little to nothing about the methodology, and he accepted a paid junket to be on a panel about the data.

In research, something as simple as changing phrasing in a question can directly influence results.

 

[echoshifting]

Junk without methodology info.

An under-appreciated feature of the First Amendment is that even as it assures that almost everyone will hear that which offends them, it spares the country lots of thorny policy fights over speech and expression that would divide an already-polarized country deeply along partisan and racial lines.

Cannot roll my eyes hard enough. Endure hate to spare the country uncomfortable conversations, America

 

[Maridia]

The author, who admits to being paid [although he assures you that he happens to agree with Cato independently and would write about the results even were he not paid], gets a one month early look at a set of survey results which just so happen to agree strongly with his predisposition as well as the predisposition of the organization who commissioned the survey, provides no notes about methodology whatsoever, and won't make even the top-line data available because it was made available to him under a paid sneak peek.



You don't need to be "unreliable" or "unsound" for something like this to happen. YouGov is a client producing spec work for Cato, who chooses how and if to report the results. This might reflect reality; it might reflect sampling decisions; it might reflect leading language in the survey; it might reflect selective reporting of results; it might reflect doing more than one survey and reporting the most agreeable set of results; it might reflect any number of things.



bahahahaah

At risk of sounding like a moron, I don't understand what you're saying. When you reference "something like this," what are you referring to?

Specifically, is your problem with the Atlantic writer conveying the results, or is it with Cato?

At any rate, I think you're saying that we need to see the cross tabs to make meaningful conclusions, which I certainly agree with.

 

[Late Flag]

That one isn't. The people most likely to suffer if social norms regarding violence decay are those minorities.

Exactly. Well said.

 

[Madness]

This.

You're not going to convince a minority whose recent cultural history is drenched in violence that violence is the answer.

punching Nazis is rooted in white privilege, it turns out that Latinos are most averse to Nazi-punching, with 80 percent calling it unacceptable; African Americans are next, with 73 percent calling it unacceptable; and white people are last, with just 56 percent agreeing.

Did you notice the guy who punched Spencer were white? The guy who punched that Seattle Nazi was white. This is a far left vs far right culture war between white people. There is a reason minorities don't want to get caught up in it because nromalizing violence means they will be the first to bear the brunt. Besides, it wasn't but 60 years ago black Americans were being bottled in the head for peaceful protest, had german shepards let loose on them, spat and punched at diners, kicked, even painful water cannons.

This is why it blows my mind that taking a knee on the field drives white people batshit insane. Look at their history of reacting to non peaceful protest.

 

[Electric Eye]

People are morons so stop asking them and place it on those who's job it is to do the right thing. Neermind.

 

[Stumpokapow]

At risk of sounding like a moron, I don't understand what you're saying. When you reference "something like this," what are you referring to?

The "something like this" is the concern that the results do not reflect the reality they intend to reflect.

Specifically, is your problem with the Atlantic writer conveying the results, or is it with Cato?

Cato paying to get a survey that happens to say the thing they exactly hoped it would say so they could pay a writer who agrees with them to have a sneak peek at the results so he could report that the results say what exactly what he and they want them to say and end with a conclusion that their politics are, in fact, that most correct -- this while not releasing even basic information about the survey.

At any rate, I think you're saying that we need to see the cross tabs to make meaningful conclusions, which I certainly agree with.

There's no sense in looking at the cross tabs if you can't even begin to know what the frame and sampling strategy was, whether or not other questions were asked and not reported, whether multiple wordings of a given question were asked, whether multiple surveys were done and not reported, the opt-in mechanism, how they dealt with non-response bias, what the weighting strategy is, whether there was a treatment prompt before the questions, whether this was conducted as a push poll to begin with, whether they would allow YouGov to release the results irrespective of the conclusion or whether they reserve the right to release the results. Once you get basic design information it may be useful to then figure out if, whether given the design, they reported the results honestly and meaningfully.

Let me put it to you this way -- imagine if Exxon commissioned a study, hired a scientist you believe might be reputable to do it, paid them to do it but swore them to NDA about commenting on the results, then hired Lou Dobbs and Sean Hannity to come read a preview of the results, which by the way said that climate change is happening slower than previously thought and human impact is less than previously thought, and then they reported those results with no reference to what the study's data was or how they conducted it or how many other studies Exxon paid for and shelved... and then we the public heard about it from Hannity's second-hand summary, which ended in Conclusion: Only Coal Can Make America Great Again, God Bless Us -- we would not say "Interesting preliminary results, I look forward to diving into the data", we would have an extremely strong prior that the conclusion is bunk, the data is collected or reported inappropriately, and the onus is on them to show otherwise without us spending another second thinking about it. And we'd certainly reject anyone pointing out that, by the way, a reputable scientist did the study.

 

[MHWilliams]

Note, these are the views of the quote-unquote moderates who you still have to convince to vote for your candidate. These people still exist, in statistically significant numbers.

 

[Velocity:Design:Comfort]

Did you notice the guy who punched Spencer were white? The guy who punched that Seattle Nazi was white. This is a far left vs far right culture war between white people. There is a reason minorities don't want to get caught up in it because nromalizing violence means they will be the first to bear the brunt. Besides, it wasn't but 60 years ago black Americans were being bottled in the head for peaceful protest, had german shepards let loose on them, spat and punched at diners, kicked, even painful water cannons.

This is why it blows my mind that taking a knee on the field drives white people batshit insane. Look at their history of reacting to non peaceful protest.

You're not wrong overall, but stop with this bs false equivalence. The far left is not trying to ethnically cleanse anyone, or deport them, or anything. They are defending people against people who openly call for murder. They are not all scary antifa or russkie reds but activists who fight for social justice at all levels of society.

 

[TheLaughingStock]

Author might as well drop the politically correct disclaimer because this piece was shockingly close to outright PR.

 

[entremet]

Of course it matters. We know little to nothing about the methodology, and he accepted a paid junket to be on a panel about the data.

In research, something as simple as changing phrasing in a question can directly influence results.

I agree about the methodology. But would you trust a liberal think tank? There are no "pure" pollsters.

Honestly, to get a better view you need more polls, by a variety of sources and varying methodologies.

 

[ZealousD]

I was called part of the Richard Spenser defense force for suggesting that he shouldn't have been punched.

I hope those numbers are a wake up call for many people on this forum. The normalization of political violence here is depressing.

 

[Dude Abides]

I was called part of the Richard Spenser defense force for suggesting that he shouldn't have been punched.

I hope those numbers are a wake up call for many people on this forum. The normalization of political violence here is depressing.

Why would anyone who thinks it's ok to punch Nazis be convinced otherwise by some poll?

 

[Dryk]

This is my main point. Setting aside that I do believe in a Millian marketplace of ideas and that it is possible to beat reprehensible ideas in nonviolent ways, on what planet is it a good idea to cheer vigilante political violence?

I want to point out that time and time again research shows that yes, there are ways to non-violently counter reprehensible ideas, but it's not in the marketplace. The most effective ways to change people's minds are manipulative, not logical.

 

[Abstrusity]

I was called part of the Richard Spenser defense force for suggesting that he shouldn't have been punched.

I hope those numbers are a wake up call for many people on this forum. The normalization of political violence here is depressing.

So what's your better idea? Surely you have one, or else you wouldn't be stopping inherently violent people from getting their asses beat -- which, I might add, is still better than they deserve.

 

[Arkage]

This study is going to be quite the can of worms, but I have a feeling the methodology is going to be largely sound when it comes out. A refusal to address the implications of preliminary data due to hypothetical bias from an otherwise sound polling institution collaboration seems ideologically convenient for those who are likely to strongly disagree with the results.

Large majorities agree that ”a big problem this country has is being politically correct," including 70 percent of Latinos, 62 percent of African Americans, and 72 percent of whites.

This stat seem most believable. While "political correctness" is a general good, a slow war was being fought against it since the 90s. Amplification of extremist voices on the left via twitter and social media by conservatives likely accelerated the damage to the term, to the point where it's beyond repair.

Otherwise, many of these numbers kind of remind me of the "Redskins" debate with the football team a few years ago. The surveys showed the vast majority of Native American's didn't give a shit. It seems counterintuitive, but many causes for social justice that you would think interest minorities just aren't registering.

Fifty-one percent of Democrats would favor a law ”requiring people to refer to a transgender person by their preferred gender pronouns and not according to their biological sex."

I also find this stat particularly interesting, since I had previously talked about how due to the significantly increasing number of possible genders (with facebook sitting at 71), attempting to legislating proper gender use into law is going to be a giant clusterfuck.

 

[Sianos]

"A speaker who advocates conversion therapy for gays and lesbians" being accepted by half the sample is hopefully just a sign that people are ignorant on what so-called "conversion therapy" actually entails. Because advocating for the torture of your fellow citizens on the basis of their sexuality is pretty blatantly a direct call for violence against them. I'd really hope a college campus wouldn't allow that.

I mean, the result is entirely believable, but upsetting nonetheless.

Kind of wish the media would drop the insidious term "conversion therapy".

 

[Abstrusity]

"A speaker who advocates conversion therapy for gays and lesbians" being accepted by half the sample is hopefully just a sign that people are ignorant on what so-called "conversion therapy" actually entails. Because advocating for the torture of your fellow citizens on the basis of their sexuality is pretty blatantly a direct call for violence against them. I'd really hope a college campus wouldn't allow that.

I mean, the result is entirely believable, but upsetting nonetheless.

Kind of wish the media would drop the insidious term "conversion therapy".

But if you start calling things what they are, they'll start voting for Trump, because their disgusting views only exist when observed. Otherwise they're in superposition.

They only believe we should be tortured until we're "normal" AFTER we call them out on the fact that they believe we should be tortured until we're "normal."

 

[Jackpot]

“it would be hard to ban hate speech because people can’t agree what speech is hateful,”

This is the most sympathetic framing of the question which instantly compromises the answer. It renders all the data useless.

 

[Mathieran]

I think most people only care about free speech and religion and what not when it matches their views. Not to mention a lot of people misinterpret those freedoms to their benefit.

See: Christian people that would squash Muslim's freedom of religion in a heartbeat if they could.

 

[Palette Swap]

If you want to see selective framing in action in these kinds of surveys, see this recent thread about another conservative think tank transparently pushing their understanding of free speech.

You should be familiar with it, OP.

Honestly, this looks a lot like conservatives trying to control the conversation and pushing for a consensus based on flawed quantitative data.

 

[LegendofDragoonLives]

btw Cato Institute is a Koch brothers think tank - really conservative/libertarian leaning

I'm out

 

[llien]

Surprised by results, I thought violent protests were more or less acceptable for US.

A speaker who says men on average are better at math than women (40 percent)

I don't see how that is hate speech (or why it is controversial), but that's factually wrong.
Girls do (slightly) better than boys at math and much better at languages/literature.

 

[Croatoan]

This study is going to be quite the can of worms, but I have a feeling the methodology is going to be largely sound when it comes out. A refusal to address the implications of preliminary data due to hypothetical bias from an otherwise sound polling institution collaboration seems ideologically convenient for those who are likely to strongly disagree with the results.



This stat seem most believable. While "political correctness" is a general good, a slow war was being fought against it since the 90s. Amplification of extremist voices on the left via twitter and social media by conservatives likely accelerated the damage to the term, to the point where it's beyond repair.

Otherwise, many of these numbers kind of remind me of the "Redskins" debate with the football team a few years ago. The surveys showed the vast majority of Native American's didn't give a shit. It seems counterintuitive, but many causes for social justice that you would think interest minorities just aren't registering.



I also find this stat particularly interesting, since I had previously talked about how due to the significantly increasing number of possible genders (with facebook sitting at 71), attempting to legislating proper gender use into law is going to be a giant clusterfuck.

Yeah, the reactions to this are eerily similar to the reactions conservatives have to "evil liberal polls". They basically dismiss it because it was done by a liberal, just like people in this thread dismiss this poll because it is more right leaning.

Nothing in this poll is that surprising though.

Surprised by results, I thought violent protests were more or less acceptable for US.





I don't see how that is hate speech (or why it is controversial), but that's factually wrong.
Girls do (slightly) better than boys at math and much better at languages/literature.

The Antifa vs Nazi crap was mostly laughed at until people started to die or get seriously injured, now its time for the children to be put back to bed. Middle class whites pretending at revolutionary fighting against grown men who think skin color means anything can only lead to mass stupidity from this point on. Time for the FBI to end it by cracking down on both sides.

 

[Kill Your Masters]

btw Cato Institute is a Koch brothers think tank - really conservative/libertarian leaning

Fake poll then.

But like for real fake poll, not Trumps meaning of the word.

 

[Jackpot]

If you want to see selective framing in action in these kinds of surveys, see this recent thread about another conservative think tank transparently pushing their understanding of free speech.

You should be familiar with it, OP.

Honestly, this looks a lot like conservatives trying to control the conversation and pushing for a consensus based on flawed quantitative data.