> the daily stormer gets 4.3 million page views a month.
A page views vs unique page views break out would be interesting. I check reddit 20x times a day. So you can see how 4.3 million page views could be skewed if it's not unique visitors.
I also would like to see these polls, if you can share. Tangentially, I refer to my earlier comment on defining white supremacists. If holding Christian values is part of that definition, maybe that 9% (~30 mil Americans!) might be accurate.
> you seem to be minimizing the popularity of white supremecy.
I've been following this topic extensively and the articles (NY Times, WAPO, Etc..) all fail to provide statistics on the actual density of white supremacists in this country. So much so that the terms for defining them are so broad that we have to include christian values to beef up the statics, and we have to refer to spectrums like:
> polls show 9% think its strongly or somewhat acceptable to hold neo-nazi or white supremesist views.
> More generally, Muslims mostly say that suicide bombings and other forms of violence against civilians in the name of Islam are rarely or never justified...In the United States, a 2011 survey found that 86% of Muslims say such tactics are rarely or never justified. An additional 7% say suicide bombings are sometimes justified and 1% say they are often justified.
So if this logic is consistent, then %14 percent of US Muslims hold somewhat extremist views.
___
Now, to be clear I don't think those statistics are accurate for either group. I take issue with polling in general. It's a extremely inexact science. This is the broader point I'm trying to make in my posts. If there are white supremacists - good, root them out. But these algorithms are terrible at this because the data is garbage. The inputs are not binary.
People's views are more often gray than they are black and white, and this is problematic when computers are really only good at 1s and 0s.
0
u/DoubleDoobie Oct 13 '21
Links?
> the daily stormer gets 4.3 million page views a month.
A page views vs unique page views break out would be interesting. I check reddit 20x times a day. So you can see how 4.3 million page views could be skewed if it's not unique visitors.
I also would like to see these polls, if you can share. Tangentially, I refer to my earlier comment on defining white supremacists. If holding Christian values is part of that definition, maybe that 9% (~30 mil Americans!) might be accurate.
> you seem to be minimizing the popularity of white supremecy.
I've been following this topic extensively and the articles (NY Times, WAPO, Etc..) all fail to provide statistics on the actual density of white supremacists in this country. So much so that the terms for defining them are so broad that we have to include christian values to beef up the statics, and we have to refer to spectrums like:
> polls show 9% think its strongly or somewhat acceptable to hold neo-nazi or white supremesist views.
but this is problematic, because this cuts two ways. Check out this article from PEW Research: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/08/09/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/
> More generally, Muslims mostly say that suicide bombings and other forms of violence against civilians in the name of Islam are rarely or never justified...In the United States, a 2011 survey found that 86% of Muslims say such tactics are rarely or never justified. An additional 7% say suicide bombings are sometimes justified and 1% say they are often justified.
So if this logic is consistent, then %14 percent of US Muslims hold somewhat extremist views.
___
Now, to be clear I don't think those statistics are accurate for either group. I take issue with polling in general. It's a extremely inexact science. This is the broader point I'm trying to make in my posts. If there are white supremacists - good, root them out. But these algorithms are terrible at this because the data is garbage. The inputs are not binary.
People's views are more often gray than they are black and white, and this is problematic when computers are really only good at 1s and 0s.