Recent Poll: 35% of Americans are jerks.

[Boris Godunov]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...f_gay_athletes

Poll indicates acceptance of gay athletes
Mon Aug 19, 8:17 PM ET
Gay.com / PlanetOut.com Network

SUMMARY: A recent opinion survey suggests that public acceptance of openly gay or lesbian professional athletes in America is generally favorable.

A recent opinion survey suggests that public acceptance of openly gay or lesbian professional athletes in America is generally favorable.

Results of the poll, conducted online last month with 2,191 adults nationwide, indicate that 65 percent of respondents would not feel differently about their favorite athlete if he or she was to reveal being gay or lesbian.

Seventy-eight percent, however, said that "other sports fans" were not so tolerant.

"In many tests of public opinion, when Americans are asked about their own discriminatory feelings - it's not unusual to hear them say that they, themselves, are more tolerant than others," said Bob Witeck, chief executive officer of Witeck-Combs Communications, which conducted the poll with Harris Interactive ( news - external web site).

In another survey question, responses demonstrated a clearer sense of support. When asked to choose a descriptive label for a popular male athlete who is openly gay, 76 percent chose positive descriptions, such as "honest," "courageous" or "being himself."

Regarding team sports versus individual sports, respondents felt that fans of team sports were much less accepting of gay or lesbian athletes than fans of individual sports.

Despite these findings, professional sports has not kept pace with many other professions in terms of welcoming openly gay and lesbian members. Last May, after a Mets manager suggested in an interview that his team could handle having a gay player, a media frenzy of speculation erupted. The incident prompted one player, catcher Mike Piazza, to insist that he is not gay.

The story is put in a positive light, but I can't help but be dismayed that tens of millions of people would think less of someone they once liked based on finding out they are gay. Not based on what they do, but who they are...shameful.

Booooooooooooooooo!!!

[chequita guevara]

Oops, didn't read the article.

[DanS]

"conducted online last month with 2,191 adults nationwide"

Oh, that's authoritative.

[rah]

I wouldn't complain if I were you. Think what that percentage would have been 10 years ago. A vast improvement I'm sure. It's going to take a lot more time before the current number is even halved.

[Zoid]

Boris, I agree, but at least it moves in the right direction (right...? )

[Zoid]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Oops, didn't read the article.

You had me wondering there for a minute or so...

[rah]

Originally posted by DanS
"conducted online last month with 2,191 adults nationwide"

Oh, that's authoritative.

Give me a nationally balanced sample with almost 2200 completed surveys, and I would feel very confident in the results. But since it said it was an online survey, I doubt very highly that it was nationally balanced. Internet surveys are skewed towards a more wealthy population, so I would think these numbers are optimistic.


RAH

[Urban Ranger]

Sorry to know that's your case, Boris.

[red_jon]

Originally posted by rah
I wouldn't complain if I were you. Think what that percentage would have been 10 years ago. A vast improvement I'm sure. It's going to take a lot more time before the current number is even halved.

Well, when acceptance is better in other countries I think theres some grounds for complaints/comparisons. If that was the best figure in the world then there wouldn't be much cause for complaint, IMO.

[DinoDoc]

Does anyone really take online surveys seriously?

[rah]

No, but our company still charges to do them.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by rah
No, but our company still charges to do them.

How much do you charge them to do nothing of substance?

[drake]

Better gay than a father to 5 different illegitimate children, as many athletes are.

Better gay than allen iverson-esque.

Lets be honest, a reasonable % of sports fans are sexist, macho type guys. They'll keep cheering Ray Lewis after he shoots a few people, but listen to them boo when they find out he likes guys.

[Arrian]

My initial reaction to the thread title - before reading any of it - was: "that's all? Seriously, I think we have more jerks than THAT!"

After reading: Boris, I agree with you but: 1) on-line polls aren't very accurate (and unfortunately, rah is probably right that the wealthier audience boosts the non-jerk responses); and 2) if the numbers are close being right, they've got to be an improvement, no?

-Arrian
(one of the 65% What the hell do I care whether Mike Piazza digs chicks or dicks?)

[Ming]

Originally posted by red_jon
Well, when acceptance is better in other countries I think theres some grounds for complaints/comparisons. If that was the best figure in the world then there wouldn't be much cause for complaint, IMO.

How do you really know about the acceptance level in other countries... Unless an identical study was done around the world, you have nothing to compare these numbers with. For all you know, these might be the best numbers

And no... I don't trust internet studies. As rah pointed out, and as I also know from studies done in my field, internet surveys are skewed, and not representative of the country as a whole. I also agree that these numbers are probably a little high since they probably skew to the more metropolitian areas vs the rural areas... sad, but probably true.

[red_jon]

Originally posted by Ming


How do you really know about the acceptance level in other countries... Unless an identical study was done around the world, you have nothing to compare these numbers with. For all you know, these might be the best numbers

And no... I don't trust internet studies. As rah pointed out, and as I also know from studies done in my field, internet surveys are skewed, and not representative of the country as a whole. I also agree that these numbers are probably a little high since they probably skew to the more metropolitian areas vs the rural areas... sad, but probably true.

Well I'm ominpresent. So I know.

And I think it's true the world over that more liberal (and edcuated) peoples live in urban areas.

And, to be fair, I'd rather live in America than Iraq

[Ming]

Originally posted by red_jon
Well I'm ominpresent. So I know.

Hmmmm... with that being the case, could you please PM me an overview of the next five days of the NYSE.

And if on Friday, you are right on target, could you then provide me with the following week overview

[drake]

And I think it's true the world over that more liberal (and edcuated) peoples live in urban areas.

Depends on where in the cities and where in the country. The quality of education in rural areas often far exceeds that of a city school.

And as far as being liberal, well it depends on the area. The notion that rural people are all ignorant hicks is well....ignorant

[red_jon]

Originally posted by Ming


Hmmmm... with that being the case, could you please PM me an overview of the next five days of the NYSE.

And if on Friday, you are right on target, could you then provide me with the following week overview

I have a very specific omnipresence, which only allows me to review the public opinion of gay athletes worldwide.

[Solly]

That figure is way false.

Probably a lot of neo-gay groups join forces on random forums in order to skew the figures. I don't believe that for a moment.

[Ming]

Originally posted by red_jon
I have a very specific omnipresence, which only allows me to review the public opinion of gay athletes worldwide.

Now that sucks... what good is having the "power" then

Drake raises some fine points. There are exceptions to every generalization. (DUHHHHH)

[Ming]

Originally posted by Boddington's Probably a lot of neo-gay groups join forces on random forums in order to skew the figures. I don't believe that for a moment.

The voice of experience speaks... well, maybe yaps like a dog...

[red_jon]

Originally posted by Ming


Now that sucks... what good is having the "power" then

Drake raises some fine points. There are exceptions to every generalization. (DUHHHHH)

It allows me to be right in the thread.

Bodders - what the hell is a 'neo-gay' group? Oh, and yes we are all telepathically linked and are conspiring to skewer the results of internet polls! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

[rah]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
How much do you charge them to do nothing of substance?

When the economy is tanked like it is now, research is one of the first things companies cut, so we'll take whatever we can get. We do warn them about reliability if they chintz out.

It is possible to do very good research over the internet. But it is considerably more costly. If you start with a nationally balance sample, suplementing mail and phone surveys to round out the lower income households and seniors, it helps. Then with the proper weighting methodology you'd be surprised at the quality of the results.

When the topic is time sensitive, the internet can beat the telephone for getting the highest number of respondents in the shortest period of time.

And if you're not as concerned about the quality of the results or at least understand how it biases the results, the internet is the CHEAPEST and fastest way to receive results. (and sometimes if you're targeting higher income households, the internet is not that bad)


RAH
end of commercial

[Solly]

Originally posted by red_jon


It allows me to be right in the thread.

Bodders - what the hell is a 'neo-gay' group? Oh, and yes we are all telepathically linked and are conspiring to skewer the results of internet polls! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!

If you lot can organise yourself into poncy little parades that get plastered all over page 2 of my local paper, then I am sure you could arrange a meeting place on the net for yourselves.

[red_jon]

Originally posted by Boddington's


If you lot can organise yourself into poncy little parades that get plastered all over page 2 of my local paper, then I am sure you could arrange a meeting place on the net for yourselves.

LOL! 'You lot'.

Now, Boddingtons I'm going to explain a concept that may confuse and frighten you.

Gay people are human. We do not have a united conscience or agenda. We have individual thoughts.

Why do I get the feeling Bodders sees us as a pink version of the Borg?

[red_jon]

We are the gays. Prepare to be homo-ulated. Resistance is futile.

[rah]

The voice of tolerance.

Yes, the Italians organize fluffy Colombus day parades every year too, so I'm sure they all met on the interent to bias the results too.

[Kepler]

Originally posted by Boddington's If you lot can organise yourself into poncy little parades that get plastered all over page 2 of my local paper, then I am sure you could arrange a meeting place on the net for yourselves.

I've seen more flagrant examples of denial. Just not lately.

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by red_jon
We are the gays. Prepare to be homo-ulated. Resistance is futile.

Thats probably what he is thinking too.

[Parody]
Hey, that guy in this room is gay.
Hey, that other guy in this room is gay too.

Wait a second, I'm in this room too. Does this mean...
I think I'd better get out of this room!
[/Parody]