Because nobody is a mind reader, and it would take one to know the true intentions and motivations of a stranger with certainty. Because as Dr. House insists, "Everybody lies." Especially after they are caught doing something naughty. Because racists and trolls who would like to pull this kind of stunt aren't rare by at all.
But you are right, I shouldn't find it odd. I have enough experience with the characters on this board that I shouldn't have expected any better out of them.
On what basis are you making that calculation?
Mostly on the basis of my personal life experience and extremely limited exposure to the character of this individual in question. Do you really care how I make my gut guesses? Fine...
Let's list the motivations for making that gesture: He could be a racist, a troll, an ignoramus, or innocent. If he's a racist or a troll, he intended to make a controversial gesture. If he is a ignoramus or innocent, then he didn't. So to use the "probabilistic fallacy" it comes out to a 50-50 split.
Just to be clear, I'm imagining an "ignoramus" might be a person who had no idea that that particular gesture was controversial, or a person who was tricked by another mischievous person to use that gesture.
To use different calculations, The number of white American men in this person's demographic who are solid racists (though they deny it) is maybe around 20-30%. Men in this demographic who are trolls who might like to pull a stunt like this regardless of their opinions on white supremacy are maybe around 5%. Men in this demographic who are completely ignorant of modern racial dog whistles like this might be as high as 50%. Men in this demographic who might only be focused on the impending game of Jeopardy so as to drive any and all other thoughts out the window might be as much as 70%.
But now we need to consider just how rare it is for a person in the western world to use that hand gesture to represent the number 3. I give that a 5% maximum which pushes the "innocent" probability down. And the additional information that the contestant didn't take the time to indicate any aspect of accidental happenstance to his explanation of the incident this pushes the "ignoramus" probability down. So the revised "innocent" rate gets adjusted to a generous 5% chance and the revised "ignoramus" rate gets cut in half, down to 25%. It's only cut by half and not 100% because he could just be trying to avoid admitting that he was completely ignorant of the gesture.
So we are left with my gut influenced probabilities of 25% racist, 5% troll, 25% ignoramus, 5% innocent. Again, 50-50 split.
One more thing that bothers me about the contestant's apology message is that he doesn't indicate ignorance OR knowledge of the existence of the racist symbolic gesture or offer any sort of regret for choosing that particular gesture for '3' over any other common gesture for '3'.
I mean there is no "whoops" aspect to his apology. There is no, "I would have done it differently if given another chance." His omission of any sort of accidental intention gives the impression that the shape his hand made is the only way he could imagine trying to symbolically represent the number '3'. That is just a little fishy.
So, an unequivocal apology makes you more suspicious?
Well, It isn't really an apology though. I was giving him credit by labeling it an apology when it was really just a repudiation of white supremacy and an explanation of how innocent he insists he is.
I think the idea that anybody read anything into how somebody represented the number 'three' on his fingers is the kind of ludicrous non-event that I would expect at a witch trial. I saw Goody Fisher make a hand gesture to summon the devil.
THIS statement is ludicrous. The next time you are out in public I dare you to indicate the number 'one' with your middle finger and then get just as upset when the other people take offence at your hand gesture.
In the context of a given culture, words have meaning. Body language has meanings. Get over it.
