[Ukv]

> And couldn't that taint the people against the phrase?

In that, you think some people would agree with the phrase when taken with its implicature and connotations, but then object to its far milder literal meaning? Struggling to see what worldview that'd be possible for.

[caminante]

No.

They'd be agnostic of the alleged nefarious meaning just like you're dismissing all those accepting as being unaware.

For your view to be true, you're saying the other 49% of blacks polled are clueless instead of seeing alternative, non nefarious meanings.

It's possible, but I wouldn't take that bet.

[Ukv]

> No. They'd be agnostic of the alleged nefarious meaning just like [...]

It's entirely possible that some interpreted it as only the literal meaning and still disagreed with it.

My point is "You can disagree with making that statement without thinking it's not okay to be white", and that the poll's poor design does not allow us to distinguish the two, which was answering your question ("How is [the poll's results] not a red flag for "hate" against another racial group?").

If a poll asks people whether they identify as "pro-life" and the majority of liberals say no, it's not a sound argument to say that then implies the majority are admitting to being pro-death, or that it's a red flag for them being some kind of death cult. The term "pro-life" has meaning (relating to abortion) beyond its literal reading (and in this case I'd expect far more to pick up on it). Maybe there genuinely are some pro-death misanthropes in the sample answering no, but the poll's design does not allow you to conclude that.

> [...] you're dismissing all those accepting as being unaware.

Those that answer in support may be unaware of its usage, or aware but choosing to interpret the poll as asking about its literal meaning, or even aware and agreeing with the implicature/associations.

> For your view to be true, you're saying the other 49% of blacks polled are clueless [...]

I'm not sure how you've drawn this conclusion.