>>121606883>Again, if it was so small, then prove it with actual stuff, not just using info from twitterAnon, I can tell you're not educated in statistical methods, because "hey, do you believe in this politically unfashionable thing" isn't a question you can ask on a survey and expect to get un-biased results that correlate to the population's true beliefs. And now, having been provided the numbers you were previously attacking, you've shifted the goal posts to something else entirely.
I noticed that you didn't try my thought experiment; you really should, it's very illuminating as to how much selection bias there is in your daily experience.
As an example, lets say you're in California. You know, lets say, 50 people on a consistent first name basis. Not all of them are friends, and you don't like all of them, but you still interact with them. Out of those 50, exactly none of them are homophobic shitlords (or so you think). That doesn't sound too unreasonable for a liberal Californian living in a liberal city, right?
24% of California is registered republican; lets be generous and cut that in half for at least partially homophobic republicans, 12%. Lets cut it in half again to 6%, to represent you living in a more liberal city or suburb. Lets cut it in half one last time to 3% to represent you only frequenting liberal-adjacent places or areas in that already liberal city.
The chance of that group of 50 people having no more than one homophobe in it, with a 3% rate, is just about 20%. 20% for a relatively small sample (I guarantee you'd know more than 50 people), and with extremely generous assumptions.
The point you should take away from this is that one of two things are true:
A) your daily life is filtered much, much more strongly than you're aware of
B) people aren't honest, and socially unfashionable beliefs are generally kept close to the heart
