More than 50% of respondents said Arabic numerals should not be taught in school
snopes.com
snopes.com
With that said, this example is substantively different because "creation theory" is a term that has a very different meaning in common parlance than the one intended here. "Arabic numerals" has no confounding information other than the mere fact that they're being called Arabic.
2. I don't believe this is evidence of bigotry. If a similar survey were to be taken in say Saudi Arabia, asking if American Numerals need to be taught in madrasass, it'd likely have a similar response.
I think this entire exercise is setup with an agenda to apparently uncover bigotry in the US, when the actual science behind it is questionable. Specious sounding, misleading questions are often answered inaccurately. Clearly, the question never educated the audience on the fact that Arabic Numerals are in fact regular numbers in general use. The whole survey is intending to exploit unawareness on the definition of "Arabic Numerals"
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu–Arabic_numeral_system
2. it's more an evidence of ignorance, coupled with a automatic response to also things that sound foreign that results in not looking up what they're voting on. Which is exhibited in the other poll on Lemaitre.
Finally: I would argue it's an random poll on the internet, which are horrifyingly inaccurate in general, andI suspect [without having any actual studies to support it] attract both the people with more extreme/bias feelings, and trolls.
What do you think bigotry is if not being opposed to something for reasons other than its own merit? The unbigoted answer if you don't know what Arabic Numerals means is the third option, "I don't know/No opinion".
Opposition to things for lack of awareness in itself isn't bigotry. Opposition because of hate of something you somewhat understand/misunderstand is bigotry.
I'd vote NO to "Should we learn Martian Numerals", because I do not know what martian numerals are, not because I hate martians
Voting no because you don't understand something is expressing hate for things that you don't understand. The unbigoted answer would be "I don't know/No opinion".
It's a stretch to call it "hate". I mean, as long as we're playing with words, maybe you can classify "No opinion" as masked hate". A No vote IS NOT BIGOTRY. I like Chocolate ice cream more than Vanilla, and would vote NO on a school survey asking what flavor to serve in the cafeteria. I'm not bigoted against Vanilla
This is not analogous unless you actually think that schools should not teach numerals or if the only reason you like chocolate is because you don't know what vanilla is. Choosing between two things by preference is also not analogous to choosing yes or no for one thing.
> A No vote IS NOT BIGOTRY.
It is IF you vote no BECAUSE you don't understand. That's called xenophobia.
If you don't have a note from a psychiatrist excusing your behavior because of a medical condition, xenophobia is bigotry. Bigotry against vanilla and Martians, it turns out, is not considered to be a big deal (yet) so you're probably safe.
"intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself"
None of the scenarios described in your tirade fits the definition.
And back to the original article, it's highly likely that the audience understood "Arabic" numerals to mean actual numerals in Arabic script. The only definitive way to deduce bigotry is from a follow up question that has amongst other choices, one for "because I dislike XYZ people". Everything else is speculation - if you don't believe me, submit this for publication in any peer reviewed academic journal.
"Never Attribute To Malice What You Can Attribute To Stupidity" - the respondants (likely) didn't know Arabic Numerals referred to what they already use, and the question is setup to exploit the general lack of knowledge on the matter, and spin a native on bigotry. Because, a story on bigotry is a LOT more click baitey than simple ignorance.
BTW - you seem intent on pushing a "bigotry" narrative, and FUD-ing in general. Are you the author? Or the person cited in the article tweeting an obvious non sequitur, claiming this unscientific, non-conclusive data to be evidence of bigotry?