[Ukv]

The phrase "it's ok to be white" has implicature (by maxim of relevance) and associations (by how the phrase originated and is used in practice) beyond its literal meaning. You can disagree with making that statement without thinking it's not okay to be white.

[caminante]

>used in practice

This has been debunked.

If it was co-opted, then why did 49% of blacks take a neutral to supportive view of the phrase in the poll?

Explain that.

[Ukv]

> This has been debunked.

What in particular has been debunked, and by what?

> If it was co-opted, then why [...]

I wouldn't say it was "co-opted" - as far as I'm aware it originated as and still mostly is an alt-right slogan.

> [...] then why did 49% of blacks take a neutral to supportive view of the phrase in the poll? Explain that.

Those unaware of the statement's usage, and those who choose to interpret the poll question as asking only about the statement's direct literal meaning, would likely answer supportive of the statement.

A better-designed poll could separate out those two issues, asking about both the statement's literal meaning and what it implies, but instead it's kind of mushed together dependant on how the respondent chose to interpret the question.

[caminante]

>direct literal meaning

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

You're trying to have it both ways.

[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.