31 ms·

62% of Americans Say They Have Political Views They’re Afraid to Share

391 points by admiralspoo 6y ago

ianhorn 6y ago
> The survey found that many Americans think a person’s private political donations should impact their employment. Nearly a quarter (22%) of Americans would support firing a business executive who personally donates to Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s campaign. Even more, 31% support firing a business executive who donates to Donald Trump’s re‐ election campaign. Holy shit. Am I reading this right? 53% of Americans would support firing someone based on a donation to a presidential campaign? Later in the post it says this figure rises to 71% of people under 30. I've always wondered how far this extends in the minds of people okay with this. If they found out in a year or two that someone donated to trump's campaign, does that justify firing too? I imagine this dystopia where someone gets fired for a donation, only for their new employer to find out about the donation and fire them too, and so on, leaving them either unemployable, or dividing employment along party lines. ------- edit: Yes, it crossed my mind that we're assuming these are disjoint groups. We might be double counting the intersection of the two groups. The true total is the percent listed above minus the percent who support firing a Trump donor while also wanting to fire a Biden donor. I can't imagine the intersection being significant, so I left it out. I expect these figures are approximately accurate if the survey is accurate.
- dmurray 6y ago
  Hopefully some of those who support firing the executive have enough moral compass to support the firer regardless of what political views the firee expressed. It might be 31%, not 53%.
  - baddox 6y ago
    Why would you hope for that? Do you think there is no way to distinguish any qualities of different political views and that they are all equivalent?
    - dmurray 6y ago
      No, but I find "businesses should be allowed fire people they disagree with" a more tolerable position than "businesses should be allowed fire people I disagree with". My conclusion above is independent of my own political views. Supposing I were a fervent Trump supporter, I should hope in that case that the Biden-firers are mostly non-partisan supporters of right-to-work laws rather than haters of my guy. Not saying I'd expect that to be true, just that I'd prefer it.
  - pessimizer 6y ago
    That's a libertarian moral compass, not a general moral compass. Though I think people should be imprisoned for murder, it doesn't make me a hypocrite if I don't think people should be imprisoned for jaywalking. I don't have to support prison no matter what crime is committed.
    - dmurray 6y ago
      Well, I consider that for at least one of the candidates, donating to him is not abhorrent enough to meet my bar for "this political speech should be censored". I'd have trouble taking seriously anyone who thought that both candidates were abhorrent enough to favour firing their supporters on ideological grounds. Allowing businesses to fire people who don't agree with them is much more acceptable to me than that.
- wincy 6y ago
  Palmer Luckey, the young founder of Oculus had his future career basically ruined for putting up a Pro-Trump billboard, if I recall. It’s terrifying, and there’s no winning stating any political opinions at work. It’s really sad because I feel like I can’t talk about anything of substance or interesting with coworkers aside from a few people whom I’ve known a long time and know they’re accepting of me even if they disagree.
  - justanotheranon 6y ago
    the Left power structure has convinced 50% of America that Trump is on the verge of installing the Fourth Reich and opening the concentration camps. the Right powerstructure has convinced 50% of Americans that Biden will be the re-animated corpse of Stalin, and that he will sieze all private property and throw us all in gulags. the net effect of this hyperpartisan polarization driven by fake news filter bubbles is that none of us can have a plain old reasonable discussion with each other, and agree to disagree about certain fundamentals, while finding a practical compromise going foward. being forced into being an extremist foot soldier of either Party or risk being destroyed by the partisans of the other Party is the worst lose-lose outcome of Prisoner's Dilemma. i think the Deep State wants us divided and at each other's throats so that we don't team up and topple them.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - pnw_hazor 6y ago
      Hyper-politicization which mostly comes from the left, is a marxist tactic related to identifying and destroying all things/persons that are problematic. This tactic is designed to weaken societal bonds in general and to target people or institutions that may get in the way of installing communism.
- Borealid 6y ago
  You cannot add the percentages like that because they may overlap. Some percentage of people can support firing an executive who donates to either campaign.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- remote_phone 6y ago
  I bought a Trump bumper sticker way back when he was still considered a joke. I thought it would be a fun souvenir for later on. The idea I could be “cancelled” because of something like this is ridiculous. This is why courts of law you are deemed “innocent before proven guilty”. I can’t believe we as a society are going through the same mistakes hundreds of years later. The US isn’t a first world country anymore, it is devolving into a political and cultural mess.
  - wry_discontent 6y ago
    Oh god, I did the same thing with a shirt! I eventually threw it out, after I found it in a closet. Not cause I thought I'd get cancelled, just cause it was gross.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ghaff 6y ago
  Brendan Eich was ousted at Mozilla (after considerable pressure) for donating to a congressional candidate and an associated proposition. And I think you'll find plenty of people here who support that ousting given that the proposition was in support of banning same-sex marriage. Presumably there is some line that many of us would agree you can't cross but opinions will differ on where and what the line is.
- api 6y ago
  We gave up attempting to actually find workable compromise solutions to problems. Instead we just polarize and scream.
- Lammy 6y ago
  It happened in 2014 to Brendan Eich for a donation he made in 2008 to California Prop 8.
- aahhahahaaa 6y ago
  It's troublesome, but I find it relatable if you boil things down to strong ideologies and hyperbole which is a lot of the problem with our current state of political discourse. For example, it might be your stance that all Trump supporters are racist. Would I hire someone who was openly racist? Absolutely not. Is the reality that all Trump supporters are racists? No, probably not. A counter-example, you believe that abortion is murder. Would you hire someone who supports murder? absolutely not. Is abortion murder? Not definitively. It depends on your personal outlook. Hiring/firing is just not an objective process anywhere, and you're going to be subject to the personal biases of the boss... and we're in particularly biased times. On the bright side, I suspect historical numbers would be worse... and at least it's not a civil war.
- baddox 6y ago
  > Holy shit. Am I reading this right? 53% of Americans would support firing someone based on a donation to a presidential campaign? Are you against this in principle, for all possible presidential candidates regardless of how bad their views and policies and actions are (by your own definition of "bad")? Or do you just think that, right now, no major candidate is "bad enough" that you would advocate firing someone for supporting that candidate?
  - Udik 6y ago
    > Are you against this in principle, for all possible presidential candidates regardless of how bad their views and policies are Not the GP, but of course yes. If someone is good enough for your political and legal system to advance his candidature at the elections and be voted by citizens, then who has the right to damage me for my legitimate political choice?
    - TulliusCicero 6y ago
      So even if someone is a literal neo-Nazi who supports killing all the Jews, imprisoning gay people, and enslaving black people, donating to such a person's candidacy isn't disqualifying in terms of the basic character one might expect (or at least hope for) of someone leading a company? I don't see how an endorsement of a vile racist couldn't be seen as disqualifying for positions of authority.
      - Udik 6y ago
        I don't get it: if someone's ideas are so universally considered horrific and dangerous, why do you even allow that person to run for the elections? The state defines a frame of things that are lawful and that every citizen should be able to perform in perfect safety. If you think that the laws of your country are not sufficient, then seek to change them; instead you seem to advocate for vigilante justice in the absence of shared and agreed upon rules.
        TulliusCicero 6y ago
- lostmsu 6y ago
  Thinking about it this is not surprising. Most people dream about being at high-positioned jobs/top ranking politicians. Political views is just a noticable part of stuff. Along with perceived incompetency, clan component of relationships (can't find English term for свояченичество), etc. that number perfectly fits into the picture to explain how we justify that dream.
- wry_discontent 6y ago
  I wouldn't support firing somebody for supporting Trump, but I can definitely understand the sentiment. Trump has pretty well established himself as a racist, and I can imagine how that would not go over well with employees of color.
  - 2020views 6y ago
    And right here, you've exposed yourself as a racist. Are you a 'person of color'? You're presuming to speak for all of them and can't imagine anyone would not share your same political views. Worse, that based on their skin color they must act as some homogeneous group.
    - wry_discontent 6y ago
      Citation needed. I didn't do any of that. It's kinda weird to me that you think that at all summarizes what I wrote.
      - 2020views 6y ago
        > "Trump has pretty well established himself as a racist, and I can imagine how that would not go over well with employees of color." So tell me then, why do you think someone supporting Trump "would not go over well" with "employees of color". Your words. Please, tell me more about how 'employees of color' think
        wry_discontent 6y ago
        Is it really controversial to say that people of color don't like racism? I guess I do hold controversial opinions. Please don't cancel me, 2020views.
- anotherman554 6y ago
  No, the question was about business executives. So among other things you can't say "53% of Americans would support firing someone based on a donation to a presidential campaign" since that wasn't the question, it was about business executives. I'm not sure why it was phrased that way. It seems to be hinting at wealthy people controlling the outcome of elections.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    I think it's more that business executives, to a greater degree than people in the trenches, are faces of the company. Being a known supporter of a political candidate who is vilified among the people who buy from you or who you otherwise depend upon for support and cooperation can be a problem.
- renewiltord 6y ago
  Sure, I support the right of people to do both of those. I'll compress the moral argument: A: Support for liberty means I don't want to restrict who works with whom. B: Veil of Ignorance means I don't want circumstances out of someone's control to result in use of A to discriminate in hire/fire. C: Individual freedom is important. D: Societal success is important. The nuance is not quick-expressible in text, but that's the short form. I believe principles are only useful if they lead to desirable outcomes, so I have no problem special-casing exemptions to these, but I don't think political opinion is worth making a protected hiring class. This is a point where I disagree with California employment law (which does make political affiliation a protected class) and agree with Federal employment law which is more circumspect in its. On the other hand, I wouldn't fire a person for political affiliation, generally. If it would almost certainly sink my business, then I would.
sosuke 6y ago
Makes sense to me. No one wants to get burned at the social media stake. It feels no matter where you land on the political arena you're liable to get reamed by those who think your views are too strong or not strong enough.
- cs02rm0 6y ago
  And the more moderate your views the more likely it is that the flack will come from both sides.
  - shirakawasuna 6y ago
    "Moderate" views are just the status quo, so of course that's the case. In an oversimplified 1-dimensional view of politics ("both sides") where you have a left, center, and right, you will always be criticized by the other two.
    - 29083011397778 6y ago
      There is absolutely room in the middle for compromise. We are not the extremes put forth by the news agencies, but shades of grey. Perhaps more bluntly, are you yourself a Nazi, a Communist, or happy with where the US is politically? If you're none of the above (as you likely aren't), then you must be able to see that moderate views can still be left or right-leaning. Maybe the kindest reading of your comment is that the average person that's overly critical on Facebook only sees in black and white, left vs right. And if so, we completely agree :)
hprotagonist 6y ago
There's lots of shit i do not talk about at work. This is nothing to do with the political climate of the US in 2020, it's very much to do with the fact that formative experiences early in my career very strongly influenced the prior that work and personal lives are streams that shall not be crossed, and coworkers are not to be trusted.
- giantg2 6y ago
  It's not just what you don't say, you're also expected to say certain things. I feel like the system at work compels people to believe certain things if they want to stay employed.
  - throwaway0a5e 6y ago
    Thank god I work in finance. Nobody expects any ideology out of us beyond understanding that "more money = more better".
    - mellosouls 6y ago
      I'm sure that's been said in every work environment till it happens there.
    - pmb 6y ago
      That's definitely a clear, strong, and powerful ideology. Pretending it is a minimal one is incorrect. More money (for whom? and by what means?) is not always better.
    - npunt 6y ago
      I can totally appreciate the desire for simplicity in work, and having a single objective number is about as simple as you can get. But there's a difference between simplicity in jobs like flipping burgers vs finance, and that's power. If we work in a job that is both powerful AND simple (like many in tech & finance), it's likely many unintended externalities are being created. Externalities, because they affect others, have strong political ramifications. So if you're working in a field with a lot of power, and you're having simple to nonexistent conversation about externalities, there's a good chance you're contributing to the problems you're trying to avoid discussing by virtue of wielding power blindly. Perhaps those externalities would be better solved at their source of the workplace rather than let fester in the public sphere. This is a sort of 'ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure' argument for why its important that workplaces engage in these discussions, and why the shareholder value maximization approach is too reductionist for corporate entities of any meaningful size or power.
logicslave 6y ago
The political environment in the USA is interesting. Common thought is that the media and general sentiment on social media are representative of the countries overall opinion. But this is not really true, people arent as swayed as the internet likes to believe. It's a giant fabricated hive mind, where a ton of people feel adversarial towards the commonly held opinions, which are in fact, not commonly held.
chosenbreed37 6y ago
Interesting...I wonder if there was an implied context for the survey. I think there is a difference between saying something in a discussion between friends over a cup of coffee/glass of beer and putting something in an email or social media of any kind (i.e. anything that leaves a permanent record without the full context of the discussion and crucially missing any non-verbal cues).
phtrivier 6y ago
Is there any reason to think this self censoring applies when answering to polls ? The "shy X voter" hypothesis is often dismissed (and slightly untestable), but could this be a sign ?
- tux1968 6y ago
  The November US election is going to be very interesting in that regard. If people are truly so upset with the current state of social discourse enough to hold their nose and vote for Trump again, it might just embolden some more vocal and confident push back. Of course, that doesn't seem very likely given all that's going on in the world. But I would have never predicted his winning the first time around either.
  - catalogia 6y ago
    I'm not sure people upset with the current state of social discourse have much incentive to vote for an incumbent. That seems inherently counterproductive.
    - tux1968 6y ago
      I think that people upset with the dominant narrative may be the reason Trump got elected in the first place. That same socially dominant sector has been railing against him non-stop for 4 years (as well as everything else they're doing). So if some people are afraid of speaking out against that narrative, the idea of secretly punishing it with their vote might come into play.
  - phtrivier 6y ago
    I really don't know how to avoid overcompensating for failing to "see it coming" in 2016. I was not as confident as many people (reading Scott Adams, at the time, at least made it more of a possibility.) Now, I simply can't picture the guy not being reelected, no matter how many poll aggregator I can see. So, my rationalization is that polls are just getting it wrong, again, and are pretty much useless, but that the silent majority will, again, surprise everyone. We need brain scans rather than poll, quickly
pradn 6y ago
Perhaps if the choices were not stark, perhaps if you werene't staring down the barrel of calamity, perhaps if America didn't have the capability to inflict immense suffering around the world or make a huge positive contribution, perhaps if political changes didn't directly affect your livelihood, perhaps if which rights you had and how much violence could be directed at you didn't depend on the politicians in power - perhaps - then we wouldn't need to worry about politics, and could talk about it as if it were the weather.
- apsec112 6y ago
  Politics has always been high-stakes, but politicizing everything would effectively mean destroying society. "I am a pro-choice atheist. When I lived in Ireland, one of my friends was a pro-life Christian. I thought she was responsible for the unnecessary suffering of millions of women. She thought I was responsible for killing millions of babies. And yet she invited me over to her house for dinner without poisoning the food. And I ate it, and thanked her, and sent her a nice card, without smashing all her china." https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/rkpDX7j7va6c8Q7cZ/in-favor-of-niceness-community-and-civilization https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/rkpDX7j7va6c8Q7cZ/in-favor-o...
sxp 6y ago
One way of approching this issue is The Kolmogorov option proposed by Scott Aaronson: https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3376 https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3376 It can be summarized as " Instead the iconoclast can choose what I think of as the Kolmogorov option. This is where you build up fortresses of truth in places the ideological authorities don’t particularly understand or care about, like pure math, or butterfly taxonomy, or irregular verbs. You avoid a direct assault on any beliefs your culture considers necessary for it to operate. You even seek out common ground with the local enforcers of orthodoxy." SlateStarCodex has a related post on the concept titled "Kolmogorov Complicity...": https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/23/kolmogorov-complicity-and-the-parable-of-lightning/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/23/kolmogorov-complicity-...
- mellosouls 6y ago
  SlateStarCodex an ironic reference in this context, nice to see it back up.
  - rsync 6y ago
    Sorry to hijack ... what is the story now at SlateStarCodex ? I checked as late as a few days ago and it was still disabled ... and now it appears to be back ?
    - mellosouls 6y ago
      I just went to it from the parent comment, then checked the main page which notes: [EDIT 7/21: This post is now a month old, and I am cautiously optimistic that the Times has changed their mind. There is no further need to take any of the actions described below.]
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- disposekinetics 6y ago
  I was not aware of Kolmogorov. I fear we may all need to become him.
Wohlf 6y ago
Most interesting to me is how common this is across demographic groups. >Self‐ censorship is widespread across demographic groups as well. Nearly two‐ thirds of Latino Americans (65%) and White Americans (64%) and nearly half of African Americans (49%) have political views they are afraid to share. Majorities of men (65%) and women (59%), people with incomes over $100,000 (60%) and people with incomes less than $20,000 (58%), people under 35 (55%) and over 65 (66%), religious (71%) and non‐ religious (56%) all agree that the political climate prevents them from expressing their true beliefs.
- notyourday 6y ago
  (D) might be in for the bigger surprise than the ones Upper East Siders saying "No one is going to vote for Nixon. I have all kinds of friends and none of them is pro-Nixon"
- lambdasquirrel 6y ago
  Well as a POC, there's plenty of things I don't feel comfortable sharing. A lot is situational. It's really hard sharing anything that might make people realize they might not be as "progressive" as they think they are – regardless of where they are on the political spectrum. Liberals are frequently unaware of their blind spots (but if you take care, they can be corrected). And then there's a swath of conservatives that don't think they're racist. If you should suggest it, it's too easy for them to dig themselves deeper into a hole. All too frequently, I'll wish I stuck to non-political / comfortable topics – and remembered that political-correctness is there to protect me as an individual, so I can live in my bubble and get on with the day, even though PC-culture might be bad policy for society.
  - skinkestek 6y ago
    > And then there's a swath of conservatives that don't think they're racist. You are aware that the way you phrase it makes it sound like we all are? I've recognized a few times that I say things in a way that makes people mad even though my original point was fine.
    - 6y ago
kgraves 6y ago
This reminds me of a quote: "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor" - Desmond Tutu And being silent is not even an option, because now "silence is violence".
- theplague42 6y ago
  I don't really understand your comment; do you agree or disagree with the quote?
  - vmception 6y ago
    Why do you think that is necessary? The quote exists. It has relevance to the conversation. Can't it just be that?
    - julianapostate 6y ago
      Everyone’s political signaling detector had its sensitivity cranked up.
- ls612 6y ago
  As I said to another comment, this is all just a restatement in flowery terms of “if you’re not with me you’re against me”. And that should scare people.
  - TulliusCicero 6y ago
    > “if you’re not with me you’re against me” ...but in many situations, that's accurate. Someone who was 'neutral' in the civil rights era on the topic of Jim Crow would be implicitly supporting Jim Crow. Their neutrality implies tolerance of the injustice that was the state of things at the time.
    - dimgl 6y ago
      What major injustices do you perceive are happening today in the United States that require laws equivalent to the Jim Crow laws? No one is turning a blind eye to our society's problems. I think we're all just wondering what major justice it is we need to deliver.
partiallypro 6y ago
One thing that has slowly eroded American ideals (IMO) is the politicization of literally everything. Not only can you not have or share a "bad" thought on politics itself...but something completely unrelated to politics (that is now politicized) is also something you could be burned at the stake for. Then there are just people that share their politics openly and often to spite others. We've essentially split into two Americas, one red and one blue. The people in the middle (which I generally identify with) are left in the cold...and not only are left in the cold but are attacked by both sides for not abiding by the doctrine. Honestly, the Left is the worst at this. They will actively try to ruin your life over wrongthink. I am much more likely to share a controversial opinion with someone on the Right than on the Left. But it's both sides, a local race here has a Republican attacking another Republican...for endorsing Romney in 2012. It's like I'm living in a bizarro world. Horseshoe theory is real.
- theplague42 6y ago
  Everything is political; being apolitical just means you support the status quo.
  - ls612 6y ago
    This is just a fancier way of saying “If you’re not with me you’re against me”
    - theplague42 6y ago
      It's literally not; how do you know I don't support the status quo? I'm just pointing out that being "apolitical" is a political stance, whether or not you agree with that stance.
      - AbrahamParangi 6y ago
        By this reasoning my dog supports the status quo.
fortran77 6y ago
What "sharing" though? Not discussing at work? I don't talk about anything non-business other than "appropriate business small-talk" with people I only know professionally. It's common courtesy.
- thephyber 6y ago
  Yeah, I'd need to see some historical baselines before I care about these percentages. If they've stayed roughly flat for 100 years versus wild 50 point swings just in the last 5 years... those bring two completely different takeaways.
trabant00 6y ago
If the majority hide their political views then there is no way to engage with them and ever present your side on issues. Which migh sound bad but is actually a natural response to being forcefully fed extreme ends of political stances. So the debate over media and internet missinformation might be for nothing. People adapt arround obstacles. In the end there could only be bots responding to bots and campaign members patting eachother on the back for the number of likes the bots generated.
- thephyber 6y ago
  > If the majority hide their political views then there is no way to engage with them and ever present your side on issues. Was this ever true? Do the majority of companies encourage talk about religion or the majority of churches encourage talk about politics? The people react to stimuli like {media, campaigns, bots} just like they do any other marketing: there is a game theory response to stimuli. If they get overwhelmed on one platform, they will change habits (eg. move to a different platform, discuss only in person where there are no bots, discuss these topics less). I suspect campaigns have been around long enough that more people (with the help of information widely distributed on the internet) have gained a different tolerance to the same old campaign tricks.
vmception 6y ago
“Yeah but clearly one side is worse” Says people on both sides, unbeknownst to them as they neg the centrist who has the audacity to analyze policies important to them at that point in time.
philipkglass 6y ago
I was raised in a conservative family. My views have shifted greatly leftward over the last 20 years. I avoid sharing my views at work not because I am afraid for myself, but because I don't want to make conservative colleagues of mine feel unwelcome. I prioritize their comfort in our shared work environment over the enjoyment I would derive from a vigorous political argument. We are there together to work on difficult technical and business problems -- not to solve (or even define) what needs changing in American political life. If I want to talk politics, I'll jump into the comments section of a blog.
- wry_discontent 6y ago
  This is my feeling as well. I've shifted well left of norms in my conservative area, so I tend to stay quiet at work.
- Sverigevader 6y ago
  I go back and forth on this. I think you can always find people in your life with whom you could have these conversations with. Especially at work I think you'd have a high chance of finding someone with whom you'd actually want to discuss these things because you respect them a lot given their work ethics and personality. They'd have different ideas and thoughts than you but wouldn't try to "convert" you in any way. I don't know... I think discourse with real people in real life is still worth something. The only thing I simply won't discuss with anyone, either online or not, is theology. It will never lead to anything good. I think everyone has to find their own way there.
  - EForEndeavour 6y ago
    > The only thing I simply won't discuss with anyone, either online or not, is theology. It will never lead to anything good. I think everyone has to find their own way there. Ultimately, yes, each person must arrive at their own personal set of beliefs and conclusions, if that's what you mean. But surely silent introspection without ever engaging with anyone else can only take one so far? Everyone is exposed to the ideas of others, and discussions often lead to epiphanies or meaningful progress in someone's own personal journey (conversations with counselors and therapists come to mind). Maybe experience will also teach me that theology/spirituality/some other prickly topic is just never worth discussing with anyone, but I also believe that it's possible to have productive discussions about a topic that is this close to what makes us human. ...Sorry, I just realized this post counts as discussing theology with you!
rayiner 6y ago
There is a remarkable corollary in these statistics: > Nearly two‐ thirds of Latino Americans (65%) and White Americans (64%) and nearly half of African Americans (49%) have political views they are afraid to share According to the first chart, 42% of “strong liberals” feel like they can share their political views. That group is disproportionately white: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/27/5-facts-about-black-democrats/ft_20-02-26_factsblackvoters_01 https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/27/5-facts-abo.... So there are all these people of color who are substantially more afraid to share their political views than a group of disproportionately white liberals on the far left.
- vmception 6y ago
  because no party has ever represented them, only pandered. the affiliation assumptions aren't as strong as people are led to believe, I would say nonexistent.
  - malwarebytess 6y ago
    Blanket statements like these are impolitic at best, and utterly wrong at worst.
    - vmception 6y ago
      but more closer to 50% since literally half of the people don’t openly espouse verbatim party line beliefs and dont want people to know, while a much greater percent of the subset that bothers/is enfranchised to vote sticks with one party Reinforcing an assumption, useful for pandering, while with this information another approach could be possible
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > because no party has ever represented them, only pandered. the affiliation assumptions aren't as strong as people are led to believe, From a different item of the same piece, Black Democrats are less likely than White Democrats to prefer compromise with Republicans. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/27/5-facts-about-black-democrats/ft_20-02-26_factsblackvoters_03/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/27/5-facts-abo...
stormdennis 6y ago
Just the other day a tribunal upheld the dismissal of Lecturer who was fired for views expressed in a conversation with his superior. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/southampton-university-lecturer-sacked-woke-culture-remarks-jewish-people-a9632451.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/...
- yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
  Worth noting that that's not American. I don't know if or how the cultural or legal issues differ, but it's not obviously apples-to-apples.
Barrin92 6y ago
Is there a baseline for how high this was in the past other than the mentioned 58% a few years ago in the article? I can't imagine that there wasn't substantial amounts of this during say, the heights of McCarthyism or when gay-rights weren't as accepted. Not to mention another interesting meta question, are people nowadays more prone to share that they feel like they cannot express their opinion? My grandparents for example have it so ingrained to not question religious belief that they probably wouldn't even perceive it that way. Or just women in general. The stereotypical "housewife" only a few decades ago wasn't participating in public discourse at all and certainly not expected to. With the exception of a few high profile intellectuals women were mostly excluded from political life. I have a hard time even comparing this to today.
- non-entity 6y ago
  Yeah I dont think it's anything new, just that the opiniond that are taboo are held by a larger chunk of the population
- cableshaft 6y ago
  I'm sure it existed back then to some extent (and to a large extent in specific periods, such as McCarthyism), but all that predates social media, which makes it so much faster and easier to spread this information to everyone in your life. In those days, you'd have to have someone want to bring it forth to the police or government for anyone to bother, and most people won't know about it until it hits the newspaper, if it does. But now it's the court of public opinion with instant judgement and you can be fired from your job, unfriended or blocked by half your friends, and everyone publicly disavowing any association with you before you even find out about it or have a chance to defend yourself. Which, from what I've seen, rarely makes a difference. The damage is already done and doesn't usually ever get undone. Of course a bunch of people are going to keep their mouths shut on political views in this environment. They want to keep their career and friends.
pessimizer 6y ago
I don't share some of my political beliefs for the same reason I don't talk about my atheism to my grandmother right now, so soon after my grandfather died. While I think they're right, they're both hurtful and unproductive to express. IMO one both should have some views that would bother people (because reason leads one to them), but sometimes choose not to express them because one's opinion isn't the most important thing in the world for other people to hear. I wish the OP meant that 62% of people have a conscience. Instead, I think it means a lot of people are afraid other people will get mad and fire them if they're openly racist. "Strong liberals" are apparently the only people who are proud enough about what they believe to be judged for it. Or maybe it's just impunity because it's illegal to fire people based on race, gender, and (often) sexual orientation, so they feel protected. Overt racists should lobby for similar protections, although I don't think they'll have a lot of luck.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  The racist label is tossed around so frivolously these days, like Nazi, to become practically meaningless except to intimidate people into silence. The truth is that strong liberals have become extremely aggressive in intimidating and shaming anyone who disagrees with them in the modern era. And it's disturbing and completely corrosive, toxic and destructive. I believe the U.S. needs its right brain and left brain to openly discuss and debate issues because neither side has a monopoly on morality or correctness. Democracy doesn't die in darkness. It dies in uniformity. Have you ever lived in a one party country? It's the closest thing to hell on Earth.
  - jahaja 6y ago
    What if the right brain is liberal and the left brain is democratic socialist? Certainly passes the uniformity test.
  - thephyber 6y ago
    > Have you ever lived in a one party country? The USA is a one party country -- it's just very good at marketing it as two parties. They never actually solve the problems they claim to care about -- they just keep using the same wedge issues for successive elections. Until we actually have competition from other parties, the two party oligopoly (enforced by entrenched interests at the state level) makes our political system as useless as a one party political system.
Animats 6y ago
Some unpopular facts: - Average US white IQ 99, average US black IQ 85-90, average US asian IQ 105. - Death rate from anorexia, 0.02%. Death rate from obesity, 8%. - Gays/lesbians as percentage of US population: 4-5%. Transgenders, 0.6%. All of those are correct. Watch this get modded down.
- beervirus 6y ago
  These are violent hate-facts, you nazi. /s
ojnabieoot 6y ago
It is worth pondering what these "political views" are. A huge number of white people (and a distressing number of nonwhites) believe in racist pseudoscience, and are justifiably afraid of expressing that view in polite company. If one of my employees said "whites are on average more intelligent than blacks," either in the office or on Facebook, I would fire them, even if it's probably true that most whites feel this way. If I had an employee that held such views, then darn right they should be afraid to talk about it. The Cato poll indicates that the biggest difference in "self-censorship" occurs among conservatives. I suspect this is because most conservatives know that supporting Donald Trump is morally indefensible, and don't want to talk about why exactly they are still voting for the most corrupt president in American history.
- thephyber 6y ago
  The red/blue split could simply be different perceptions based on consumption of different partisan media diets.
throwaway023421 6y ago
129 comments and nobody pointed out that cato institute is a right wing "think tank". And that the way the survey is phrased clearly hints that conservatives are being silenced while "Strong liberals stand out as the only political group who feel they can express themselves" Ironically, a survey on the political spectrum depicts such spectrum as "liberal vs conservative". Excellent display of Overton window at work. I wonder if "hacker" news is going to downvote me to hell for saying this.
justanotheranon 6y ago
the saddest thing is while us Plebs persecute each other over which wrestler we like, the real power structure running America remains invisible and unchallenged. neither Biden or Trump have as much power as our Media Overlords have fooled us into believing. The President is largely the head cheerleader of Team America. they can tweet, they can give a speech, but they cannot control the Deep State one iota. Back in 2009, I remember Obama said one of the most insightful things Ive heard any President say. He said the FedGov is like a ship and all he can do is turn the rudder to aim us in a given direction, but we wont arrive for 10 or 20 years. personally, i think MAGAtards are just as blind as DemonRats. i guess that opinion means i have to be extra careful expressing my views at work, because i'll get Canceled by both the Left and the Right for heresy against their UniParty-WarParty othodoxy. honk. honk.
supergrumpybear 6y ago
I think there needs to be a distinction between political ideas and political ideologies. Especially in the United States, where there's an obsession between the GOP and the DCCC, even though neither political party represents a majority. When you ask respondents on political ideas, like voting rights, immigration, state welfare, infrastructure, etc, a much broader and more moderate viewpoint emerges. Also there seems to be a more growing disconnect between people in power and the masses. I think as data science becomes a more developed craft, more people will become aware about the motivations of our political actors. Sensationalism and political correctness are usually signs of a deeper problem---
DevKoala 6y ago
This doesn't surprise me. I am also afraid to express myself for fear of being rejected by most of my friends or excluded from my professional network. It is sad that I can only be honest and say things such as "let's wait for the facts" under a nickname on some dark corner of the web.
- Traster 6y ago
  Maybe take some self-examination. Your friends should be your most sympathetic audience, if you're afraid of expressing your opinions even to them, maybe you need to have an honest converstaion either with yoursself or with them.
  - DevKoala 6y ago
    My family is my most sympathetic audience. Also, my closest friends understand me well and accept who I am. However, I have tons of friends apart from the groups mentioned above; people that I appreciate, whom I have met through different hobbies or passions. None of these bonds have a connection to politics, but it is common for some of them to bring up political topics during these months. I reserve my opinions on these topics because I understand that there are a lot of emotions involved. Moreover, we all have biases. We are not at war, we just digress on the solutions the country needs.
Ijumfs 6y ago
I work for one of the Big Three and I can't let anybody know I support Trump. The threat of being harassed at work and home, being fired or passed over for promotions, it's too much to risk. So I will continue to wear my Biden shirt to work once every fortnight and take Trump secretly with me into the ballot box. EDIT: already downvoted. Confirming what everybody knows, there is a war against non-lefties.
- malwarebytess 6y ago
  I mean, I would fire you. Anyone who genuinely thinks Donald Trump is the best leader for this country after seeing 4 years of his leadership probably isn't wise enough to handle the work.
nickgrosvenor 6y ago
Things like twitter have unwittingly become Orwellian. A log of everything you've ever said and thought for the rest of the world to see. This is why the future of the internet is going to be a closed end internet. Something that isn't accessible by everyone. Whether through paid entry, invitation, or geography, the future of the internet is going be more closed end than it is now. The open ended internet of today will become a junk yard of spam and identity thieves in the future. Early adopters and rich people were the first to get on the internet and they'll be the fist to get off of it too. For something more private.
dhosek 6y ago
The poll is a bit flawed. What exactly are people afraid to share? If it's "black people don't deserve rights," that's a good thing.
Shivetya 6y ago
try being a Libertarian but work is not the place to discuss politics or sex. it is dangerous to have an opinion on anything other than sports and even then only at the team level.
- mathgladiator 6y ago
  Try liking Ayn Rand.
joe_the_user 6y ago
Is it wrong to say some beliefs should be "shamed away"? The thing is, aside from traditional liberal and conservative views, it has been documented how the Internet gives play to a variety of essentially delusional belief systems; flat-earth, anti-vax, 5G fears, "crisis actor" conspiracies, etc. Basically, things that in earlier times someone might imagine one day but give up through realizing that their friends and neighbors might (correctly) think they were crazy if they continued to entertain such idea. And this isn't to say such ideas are absolutely distinct from political ideas - just about any type of delusion is now given a particular kind of political spin since the committedly delusional are an easily directed group. The situation is - once people got their ideas from the neighbors and maybe their schools and churches. Gradually, they came to also get their ideas from mass media. This was already somewhat artificial but at least it kept a single social authority. Now, people get their ideas from mass media and "the Internet"("dispersed", "narrow-cast" media), with mass media struggling to keep up some unity of beliefs (though mass media itself easily cast as a manipulator of its own sort).
- malwarebytess 6y ago
  I don't think it's necessarily wrong. All society is is norms and taboo. If someone is violating the social norms and/or breaking taboo the natural response is social shaming. This can have negative consequences but it's hard to argue that it is wrong to do this all of the time.
munificent 6y ago
I think a big part of this is that the definition of "say" has changed dramatically in the past decade. Today, people interpret that to mean, in part at least, "broadcast on the Internet where I have no control over the audience and where it will be recorded digitally and available indefinitely". 10-20 years ago "saying" just meant verbalizing something around a handful of people you could see. You'd know who you were talking to, and if you said something dumb, human memory and time would soften its edges eventually. Ask people in the 1990s if they would self-censor themselves when appearing on TV and they'd probably say yes at the same rate that people say they self-censor when "talking" today, in large part because computers are such a large medium of communication now.
coronadisaster 6y ago
Americans are afraid a lot... Of the police among other things.
boomboomsubban 6y ago
The actual question asked was >The political climate these days prevents me from saying things I believe because others might find them offensive With the 62% includes anyone who "strongly agrees" or "somewhat agrees." I would answer "somewhat agrees" to that question, not because I'm afraid to share my beliefs but that I don't want to discuss the topic or I'm not knowledgeable enough to have confidence discussing my beliefs.
8bitsrule 6y ago
I'm not too concerned about people in "the land of the brave, the home of the free" who feel unable to express themselves in words. Their actions (or lack thereof) speak much louder than any words. Injustice is self-evident, and 'I know it when I see it.'
Traster 6y ago
For those that don't know, you can set a setting in your profile "showdead" that will show you the views that got "flagged" as not to be on hackernews. This is an inherently political thread and you probably want to know what people beyond the majority agree with. I mean in a literal sense it's quite funny that if you express a bad political opinion on HN you'll be hidden from view. That would seem counter-productive in inherently political discussions. I know HN doesn't want to get into politics, and maybe there's a discission to be had about priviledge there, but I think the first step would atleast to be seeing what people are actually saying.
Alupis 6y ago
The very fact this article was flagged and banished from the front page so quickly, really speaks volumes towards the study's point - does it not?
replyifuagree 6y ago
These day did you want to know how people are going to vote, you have to ask them how their neighbor is going to vote.
- DenisM 6y ago
  That's a very interesting idea. Do you think people will be more forthcoming this way?
  - replyifuagree 6y ago
    I think that's one of the techniques used by Robert Cahaly to predict the Trump victory. He calls it "social desirability bias” I read something where he thinks that the bias is even worse this time around, he's calculated Trump down by 3 points right now.
    - DenisM 6y ago
      > he's calculated Trump down by 3 points right now Do you mean Trump has less support this election by 3% compared to the last election?
GoodJokes 6y ago
ITT: people who think they know stuff about political science.
stmfreak 6y ago
Cancel culture has quenched political discussion. It’s impossible to share views, even among coworkers you might consider friends, without serious risk to one’s employment. The effect is likely more polarization since we cannot moderate each other’s opinions with stories of our own experiences.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Cancel culture has quenched political discussion. To the extent “cancel culture” describes something new, it has not. > It’s impossible to share views, even among coworkers you might consider friends, without serious risk to one’s employment. It always has been, for certain views. Which views are more safe and which are more dangerous has changed over time. People who think that it has suddenly become dangerous is people who have views that have recently become less privileged in this context.
  - thaneross 6y ago
    I can tell you, mentioning I'm in a polyamorous relationship with my coworkers feels _less safe_ today then it did 5 years ago. People before didn't really understand (they still don't) but I usually encountered an attitude of live-and-let-live tolerance. Today I get 3 reactions: conservatives who are afraid to say anything so they avoid me, progressives who treat me like some kind of novelty, and the rest who don't care. I don't consider this progress.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      I suspect that specific issue is less to do with “cancel culture” and more to do with and more to do with polygamy and polyandry in recent years becoming,among other things, reality TV fodder and thus issues that are more in the public consciousness and about which people are more likely to have come to a somewhat firm opinion on.
      - thaneross 6y ago
        That doesn't match my experience. People are afraid to speak openly to me and that does me a disservice.
madhadron 6y ago
Looking at the methodology it looks like a reasonably conducted survey, but it has a basic methodological flaw: it cannot distinguish between any particular models, such as "a privileged group oppressing contrary beliefs" versus "the peace treaty of tolerance is functioning and bigots must suppress their beliefs to keep its protections." Further, the causes of self censorship need not be identical. Both of the two models I just posited can be in play at the same time in various subpopulations and around various issues. And there are lots of group/individual relations you can posit for this. Social science is hard. So this data set might be an interesting preliminary trial, but releasing it as a finished study is either sloppy or malicious on the part of the Cato Institute. Edit: Reading the other comments on here, I'm inclined towards malicious as it seems spun to create just the kind of rhetoric that we're seeing here.
anonmidniteshpr 6y ago
From the IPCC imposter report climate-change denial billionaires shop, that's a rich and trustworthy factoid.
richardxlin 6y ago
Interesting skewed the numbers are towards Republicans. I wonder if this will reflect in the upcoming elections.
thomk 6y ago
This used to simply be called "It isn't polite to talk about politics". Most people are compassionate and simply don't want to upset others or ruin a pleasant visit.
powerapple 6y ago
That's really nice. World is so much better with fewer political views. I like a racist who can keep his/her views to him/her-self to be honest. To be honest, when people say there is some political views they are afraid to share, it is not about budget spending, or military operation in Syria I bet.
- nlitened 6y ago
  Looks like they might be afraid of exactly this kind of black-and-white labeling
deanCommie 6y ago
almost 500 comments and noone mentioned that the Cato institute has a fairly strong conservative bias: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cato-institute/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cato-institute/ If someone says something racist, they are exercising free speech. If someone in return calls that out for being racist, and shames them, they are ALSO exercising free speech. So long as the government does not punish either of them, noone's Free Speech is being compromised. But the outcome of this exchange is that the first person is going to claim repression then vote in this survey and say they are afraid to share their political views. Frankly, the only problem I see is people's inability to introspect.
droptablemain 6y ago
Conservatives are making this all about them. Reality is more nuanced than that. For example, as a communist, I have to be extremely discerning about the context under which I share my political views. Sixty-plus years of American anti-communist propaganda has a pretty damning effect. And that type of political suppression, conservatives generally agree with. So let's not pretend like the broader Right consists of champions of liberty or anything.
shadowgovt 6y ago
More interesting is the cause: "because others might find them offensive." Americans are discovering that freedom of speech doesn't imply freedom from societal consequences over what people heard, and the Internet has amplified everyone's speech such that the radius of hearing is out of one's control if one decides to say something on the loud channels.

391 points by admiralspoo 6y ago

> The survey found that many Americans think a person’s private political donations should impact their employment. Nearly a quarter (22%) of Americans would support firing a business executive who personally donates to Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s campaign. Even more, 31% support firing a business executive who donates to Donald Trump’s re‐ election campaign. Holy shit. Am I reading this right? 53% of Americans would support firing someone based on a donation to a presidential campaign? Later in the post it says this figure rises to 71% of people under 30. I've always wondered how far this extends in the minds of people okay with this. If they found out in a year or two that someone donated to trump's campaign, does that justify firing too? I imagine this dystopia where someone gets fired for a donation, only for their new employer to find out about the donation and fire them too, and so on, leaving them either unemployable, or dividing employment along party lines. ------- edit: Yes, it crossed my mind that we're assuming these are disjoint groups. We might be double counting the intersection of the two groups. The true total is the percent listed above minus the percent who support firing a Trump donor while also wanting to fire a Biden donor. I can't imagine the intersection being significant, so I left it out. I expect these figures are approximately accurate if the survey is accurate.

dmurray 6y ago
Hopefully some of those who support firing the executive have enough moral compass to support the firer regardless of what political views the firee expressed. It might be 31%, not 53%.
- baddox 6y ago
  Why would you hope for that? Do you think there is no way to distinguish any qualities of different political views and that they are all equivalent?
  - dmurray 6y ago
    No, but I find "businesses should be allowed fire people they disagree with" a more tolerable position than "businesses should be allowed fire people I disagree with". My conclusion above is independent of my own political views. Supposing I were a fervent Trump supporter, I should hope in that case that the Biden-firers are mostly non-partisan supporters of right-to-work laws rather than haters of my guy. Not saying I'd expect that to be true, just that I'd prefer it.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  That's a libertarian moral compass, not a general moral compass. Though I think people should be imprisoned for murder, it doesn't make me a hypocrite if I don't think people should be imprisoned for jaywalking. I don't have to support prison no matter what crime is committed.
  - dmurray 6y ago
    Well, I consider that for at least one of the candidates, donating to him is not abhorrent enough to meet my bar for "this political speech should be censored". I'd have trouble taking seriously anyone who thought that both candidates were abhorrent enough to favour firing their supporters on ideological grounds. Allowing businesses to fire people who don't agree with them is much more acceptable to me than that.
wincy 6y ago
Palmer Luckey, the young founder of Oculus had his future career basically ruined for putting up a Pro-Trump billboard, if I recall. It’s terrifying, and there’s no winning stating any political opinions at work. It’s really sad because I feel like I can’t talk about anything of substance or interesting with coworkers aside from a few people whom I’ve known a long time and know they’re accepting of me even if they disagree.
- justanotheranon 6y ago
  the Left power structure has convinced 50% of America that Trump is on the verge of installing the Fourth Reich and opening the concentration camps. the Right powerstructure has convinced 50% of Americans that Biden will be the re-animated corpse of Stalin, and that he will sieze all private property and throw us all in gulags. the net effect of this hyperpartisan polarization driven by fake news filter bubbles is that none of us can have a plain old reasonable discussion with each other, and agree to disagree about certain fundamentals, while finding a practical compromise going foward. being forced into being an extremist foot soldier of either Party or risk being destroyed by the partisans of the other Party is the worst lose-lose outcome of Prisoner's Dilemma. i think the Deep State wants us divided and at each other's throats so that we don't team up and topple them.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - pnw_hazor 6y ago
    Hyper-politicization which mostly comes from the left, is a marxist tactic related to identifying and destroying all things/persons that are problematic. This tactic is designed to weaken societal bonds in general and to target people or institutions that may get in the way of installing communism.
Borealid 6y ago
You cannot add the percentages like that because they may overlap. Some percentage of people can support firing an executive who donates to either campaign.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
remote_phone 6y ago
I bought a Trump bumper sticker way back when he was still considered a joke. I thought it would be a fun souvenir for later on. The idea I could be “cancelled” because of something like this is ridiculous. This is why courts of law you are deemed “innocent before proven guilty”. I can’t believe we as a society are going through the same mistakes hundreds of years later. The US isn’t a first world country anymore, it is devolving into a political and cultural mess.
- wry_discontent 6y ago
  Oh god, I did the same thing with a shirt! I eventually threw it out, after I found it in a closet. Not cause I thought I'd get cancelled, just cause it was gross.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ghaff 6y ago
Brendan Eich was ousted at Mozilla (after considerable pressure) for donating to a congressional candidate and an associated proposition. And I think you'll find plenty of people here who support that ousting given that the proposition was in support of banning same-sex marriage. Presumably there is some line that many of us would agree you can't cross but opinions will differ on where and what the line is.
api 6y ago
We gave up attempting to actually find workable compromise solutions to problems. Instead we just polarize and scream.
Lammy 6y ago
It happened in 2014 to Brendan Eich for a donation he made in 2008 to California Prop 8.
aahhahahaaa 6y ago
It's troublesome, but I find it relatable if you boil things down to strong ideologies and hyperbole which is a lot of the problem with our current state of political discourse. For example, it might be your stance that all Trump supporters are racist. Would I hire someone who was openly racist? Absolutely not. Is the reality that all Trump supporters are racists? No, probably not. A counter-example, you believe that abortion is murder. Would you hire someone who supports murder? absolutely not. Is abortion murder? Not definitively. It depends on your personal outlook. Hiring/firing is just not an objective process anywhere, and you're going to be subject to the personal biases of the boss... and we're in particularly biased times. On the bright side, I suspect historical numbers would be worse... and at least it's not a civil war.
baddox 6y ago
> Holy shit. Am I reading this right? 53% of Americans would support firing someone based on a donation to a presidential campaign? Are you against this in principle, for all possible presidential candidates regardless of how bad their views and policies and actions are (by your own definition of "bad")? Or do you just think that, right now, no major candidate is "bad enough" that you would advocate firing someone for supporting that candidate?
- Udik 6y ago
  > Are you against this in principle, for all possible presidential candidates regardless of how bad their views and policies are Not the GP, but of course yes. If someone is good enough for your political and legal system to advance his candidature at the elections and be voted by citizens, then who has the right to damage me for my legitimate political choice?
  - TulliusCicero 6y ago
    So even if someone is a literal neo-Nazi who supports killing all the Jews, imprisoning gay people, and enslaving black people, donating to such a person's candidacy isn't disqualifying in terms of the basic character one might expect (or at least hope for) of someone leading a company? I don't see how an endorsement of a vile racist couldn't be seen as disqualifying for positions of authority.
    - Udik 6y ago
      I don't get it: if someone's ideas are so universally considered horrific and dangerous, why do you even allow that person to run for the elections? The state defines a frame of things that are lawful and that every citizen should be able to perform in perfect safety. If you think that the laws of your country are not sufficient, then seek to change them; instead you seem to advocate for vigilante justice in the absence of shared and agreed upon rules.
      - TulliusCicero 6y ago
lostmsu 6y ago
Thinking about it this is not surprising. Most people dream about being at high-positioned jobs/top ranking politicians. Political views is just a noticable part of stuff. Along with perceived incompetency, clan component of relationships (can't find English term for свояченичество), etc. that number perfectly fits into the picture to explain how we justify that dream.
wry_discontent 6y ago
I wouldn't support firing somebody for supporting Trump, but I can definitely understand the sentiment. Trump has pretty well established himself as a racist, and I can imagine how that would not go over well with employees of color.
- 2020views 6y ago
  And right here, you've exposed yourself as a racist. Are you a 'person of color'? You're presuming to speak for all of them and can't imagine anyone would not share your same political views. Worse, that based on their skin color they must act as some homogeneous group.
  - wry_discontent 6y ago
    Citation needed. I didn't do any of that. It's kinda weird to me that you think that at all summarizes what I wrote.
    - 2020views 6y ago
      > "Trump has pretty well established himself as a racist, and I can imagine how that would not go over well with employees of color." So tell me then, why do you think someone supporting Trump "would not go over well" with "employees of color". Your words. Please, tell me more about how 'employees of color' think
      - wry_discontent 6y ago
        Is it really controversial to say that people of color don't like racism? I guess I do hold controversial opinions. Please don't cancel me, 2020views.
anotherman554 6y ago
No, the question was about business executives. So among other things you can't say "53% of Americans would support firing someone based on a donation to a presidential campaign" since that wasn't the question, it was about business executives. I'm not sure why it was phrased that way. It seems to be hinting at wealthy people controlling the outcome of elections.
- ghaff 6y ago
  I think it's more that business executives, to a greater degree than people in the trenches, are faces of the company. Being a known supporter of a political candidate who is vilified among the people who buy from you or who you otherwise depend upon for support and cooperation can be a problem.
renewiltord 6y ago
Sure, I support the right of people to do both of those. I'll compress the moral argument: A: Support for liberty means I don't want to restrict who works with whom. B: Veil of Ignorance means I don't want circumstances out of someone's control to result in use of A to discriminate in hire/fire. C: Individual freedom is important. D: Societal success is important. The nuance is not quick-expressible in text, but that's the short form. I believe principles are only useful if they lead to desirable outcomes, so I have no problem special-casing exemptions to these, but I don't think political opinion is worth making a protected hiring class. This is a point where I disagree with California employment law (which does make political affiliation a protected class) and agree with Federal employment law which is more circumspect in its. On the other hand, I wouldn't fire a person for political affiliation, generally. If it would almost certainly sink my business, then I would.

sosuke 6y ago

Makes sense to me. No one wants to get burned at the social media stake. It feels no matter where you land on the political arena you're liable to get reamed by those who think your views are too strong or not strong enough.

cs02rm0 6y ago
And the more moderate your views the more likely it is that the flack will come from both sides.
- shirakawasuna 6y ago
  "Moderate" views are just the status quo, so of course that's the case. In an oversimplified 1-dimensional view of politics ("both sides") where you have a left, center, and right, you will always be criticized by the other two.
  - 29083011397778 6y ago
    There is absolutely room in the middle for compromise. We are not the extremes put forth by the news agencies, but shades of grey. Perhaps more bluntly, are you yourself a Nazi, a Communist, or happy with where the US is politically? If you're none of the above (as you likely aren't), then you must be able to see that moderate views can still be left or right-leaning. Maybe the kindest reading of your comment is that the average person that's overly critical on Facebook only sees in black and white, left vs right. And if so, we completely agree :)

hprotagonist 6y ago

There's lots of shit i do not talk about at work. This is nothing to do with the political climate of the US in 2020, it's very much to do with the fact that formative experiences early in my career very strongly influenced the prior that work and personal lives are streams that shall not be crossed, and coworkers are not to be trusted.

giantg2 6y ago
It's not just what you don't say, you're also expected to say certain things. I feel like the system at work compels people to believe certain things if they want to stay employed.
- throwaway0a5e 6y ago
  Thank god I work in finance. Nobody expects any ideology out of us beyond understanding that "more money = more better".
  - mellosouls 6y ago
    I'm sure that's been said in every work environment till it happens there.
  - pmb 6y ago
    That's definitely a clear, strong, and powerful ideology. Pretending it is a minimal one is incorrect. More money (for whom? and by what means?) is not always better.
  - npunt 6y ago
    I can totally appreciate the desire for simplicity in work, and having a single objective number is about as simple as you can get. But there's a difference between simplicity in jobs like flipping burgers vs finance, and that's power. If we work in a job that is both powerful AND simple (like many in tech & finance), it's likely many unintended externalities are being created. Externalities, because they affect others, have strong political ramifications. So if you're working in a field with a lot of power, and you're having simple to nonexistent conversation about externalities, there's a good chance you're contributing to the problems you're trying to avoid discussing by virtue of wielding power blindly. Perhaps those externalities would be better solved at their source of the workplace rather than let fester in the public sphere. This is a sort of 'ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure' argument for why its important that workplaces engage in these discussions, and why the shareholder value maximization approach is too reductionist for corporate entities of any meaningful size or power.

logicslave 6y ago

The political environment in the USA is interesting. Common thought is that the media and general sentiment on social media are representative of the countries overall opinion. But this is not really true, people arent as swayed as the internet likes to believe. It's a giant fabricated hive mind, where a ton of people feel adversarial towards the commonly held opinions, which are in fact, not commonly held.

chosenbreed37 6y ago

Interesting...I wonder if there was an implied context for the survey. I think there is a difference between saying something in a discussion between friends over a cup of coffee/glass of beer and putting something in an email or social media of any kind (i.e. anything that leaves a permanent record without the full context of the discussion and crucially missing any non-verbal cues).

phtrivier 6y ago

Is there any reason to think this self censoring applies when answering to polls ? The "shy X voter" hypothesis is often dismissed (and slightly untestable), but could this be a sign ?

tux1968 6y ago
The November US election is going to be very interesting in that regard. If people are truly so upset with the current state of social discourse enough to hold their nose and vote for Trump again, it might just embolden some more vocal and confident push back. Of course, that doesn't seem very likely given all that's going on in the world. But I would have never predicted his winning the first time around either.
- catalogia 6y ago
  I'm not sure people upset with the current state of social discourse have much incentive to vote for an incumbent. That seems inherently counterproductive.
  - tux1968 6y ago
    I think that people upset with the dominant narrative may be the reason Trump got elected in the first place. That same socially dominant sector has been railing against him non-stop for 4 years (as well as everything else they're doing). So if some people are afraid of speaking out against that narrative, the idea of secretly punishing it with their vote might come into play.
- phtrivier 6y ago
  I really don't know how to avoid overcompensating for failing to "see it coming" in 2016. I was not as confident as many people (reading Scott Adams, at the time, at least made it more of a possibility.) Now, I simply can't picture the guy not being reelected, no matter how many poll aggregator I can see. So, my rationalization is that polls are just getting it wrong, again, and are pretty much useless, but that the silent majority will, again, surprise everyone. We need brain scans rather than poll, quickly

pradn 6y ago

Perhaps if the choices were not stark, perhaps if you werene't staring down the barrel of calamity, perhaps if America didn't have the capability to inflict immense suffering around the world or make a huge positive contribution, perhaps if political changes didn't directly affect your livelihood, perhaps if which rights you had and how much violence could be directed at you didn't depend on the politicians in power - perhaps - then we wouldn't need to worry about politics, and could talk about it as if it were the weather.

apsec112 6y ago
Politics has always been high-stakes, but politicizing everything would effectively mean destroying society. "I am a pro-choice atheist. When I lived in Ireland, one of my friends was a pro-life Christian. I thought she was responsible for the unnecessary suffering of millions of women. She thought I was responsible for killing millions of babies. And yet she invited me over to her house for dinner without poisoning the food. And I ate it, and thanked her, and sent her a nice card, without smashing all her china." https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/rkpDX7j7va6c8Q7cZ/in-favor-of-niceness-community-and-civilization https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/rkpDX7j7va6c8Q7cZ/in-favor-o...

sxp 6y ago

One way of approching this issue is The Kolmogorov option proposed by Scott Aaronson: https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3376 https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3376 It can be summarized as " Instead the iconoclast can choose what I think of as the Kolmogorov option. This is where you build up fortresses of truth in places the ideological authorities don’t particularly understand or care about, like pure math, or butterfly taxonomy, or irregular verbs. You avoid a direct assault on any beliefs your culture considers necessary for it to operate. You even seek out common ground with the local enforcers of orthodoxy." SlateStarCodex has a related post on the concept titled "Kolmogorov Complicity...": https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/23/kolmogorov-complicity-and-the-parable-of-lightning/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/23/kolmogorov-complicity-...

mellosouls 6y ago
SlateStarCodex an ironic reference in this context, nice to see it back up.
- rsync 6y ago
  Sorry to hijack ... what is the story now at SlateStarCodex ? I checked as late as a few days ago and it was still disabled ... and now it appears to be back ?
  - mellosouls 6y ago
    I just went to it from the parent comment, then checked the main page which notes: [EDIT 7/21: This post is now a month old, and I am cautiously optimistic that the Times has changed their mind. There is no further need to take any of the actions described below.]
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
disposekinetics 6y ago
I was not aware of Kolmogorov. I fear we may all need to become him.

Wohlf 6y ago

Most interesting to me is how common this is across demographic groups. >Self‐ censorship is widespread across demographic groups as well. Nearly two‐ thirds of Latino Americans (65%) and White Americans (64%) and nearly half of African Americans (49%) have political views they are afraid to share. Majorities of men (65%) and women (59%), people with incomes over $100,000 (60%) and people with incomes less than $20,000 (58%), people under 35 (55%) and over 65 (66%), religious (71%) and non‐ religious (56%) all agree that the political climate prevents them from expressing their true beliefs.

notyourday 6y ago
(D) might be in for the bigger surprise than the ones Upper East Siders saying "No one is going to vote for Nixon. I have all kinds of friends and none of them is pro-Nixon"
lambdasquirrel 6y ago
Well as a POC, there's plenty of things I don't feel comfortable sharing. A lot is situational. It's really hard sharing anything that might make people realize they might not be as "progressive" as they think they are – regardless of where they are on the political spectrum. Liberals are frequently unaware of their blind spots (but if you take care, they can be corrected). And then there's a swath of conservatives that don't think they're racist. If you should suggest it, it's too easy for them to dig themselves deeper into a hole. All too frequently, I'll wish I stuck to non-political / comfortable topics – and remembered that political-correctness is there to protect me as an individual, so I can live in my bubble and get on with the day, even though PC-culture might be bad policy for society.
- skinkestek 6y ago
  > And then there's a swath of conservatives that don't think they're racist. You are aware that the way you phrase it makes it sound like we all are? I've recognized a few times that I say things in a way that makes people mad even though my original point was fine.
  - 6y ago

kgraves 6y ago

This reminds me of a quote: "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor" - Desmond Tutu And being silent is not even an option, because now "silence is violence".

theplague42 6y ago
I don't really understand your comment; do you agree or disagree with the quote?
- vmception 6y ago
  Why do you think that is necessary? The quote exists. It has relevance to the conversation. Can't it just be that?
  - julianapostate 6y ago
    Everyone’s political signaling detector had its sensitivity cranked up.
ls612 6y ago
As I said to another comment, this is all just a restatement in flowery terms of “if you’re not with me you’re against me”. And that should scare people.
- TulliusCicero 6y ago
  > “if you’re not with me you’re against me” ...but in many situations, that's accurate. Someone who was 'neutral' in the civil rights era on the topic of Jim Crow would be implicitly supporting Jim Crow. Their neutrality implies tolerance of the injustice that was the state of things at the time.
  - dimgl 6y ago
    What major injustices do you perceive are happening today in the United States that require laws equivalent to the Jim Crow laws? No one is turning a blind eye to our society's problems. I think we're all just wondering what major justice it is we need to deliver.

partiallypro 6y ago

One thing that has slowly eroded American ideals (IMO) is the politicization of literally everything. Not only can you not have or share a "bad" thought on politics itself...but something completely unrelated to politics (that is now politicized) is also something you could be burned at the stake for. Then there are just people that share their politics openly and often to spite others. We've essentially split into two Americas, one red and one blue. The people in the middle (which I generally identify with) are left in the cold...and not only are left in the cold but are attacked by both sides for not abiding by the doctrine. Honestly, the Left is the worst at this. They will actively try to ruin your life over wrongthink. I am much more likely to share a controversial opinion with someone on the Right than on the Left. But it's both sides, a local race here has a Republican attacking another Republican...for endorsing Romney in 2012. It's like I'm living in a bizarro world. Horseshoe theory is real.

theplague42 6y ago
Everything is political; being apolitical just means you support the status quo.
- ls612 6y ago
  This is just a fancier way of saying “If you’re not with me you’re against me”
  - theplague42 6y ago
    It's literally not; how do you know I don't support the status quo? I'm just pointing out that being "apolitical" is a political stance, whether or not you agree with that stance.
    - AbrahamParangi 6y ago
      By this reasoning my dog supports the status quo.

fortran77 6y ago

What "sharing" though? Not discussing at work? I don't talk about anything non-business other than "appropriate business small-talk" with people I only know professionally. It's common courtesy.

thephyber 6y ago
Yeah, I'd need to see some historical baselines before I care about these percentages. If they've stayed roughly flat for 100 years versus wild 50 point swings just in the last 5 years... those bring two completely different takeaways.

trabant00 6y ago

If the majority hide their political views then there is no way to engage with them and ever present your side on issues. Which migh sound bad but is actually a natural response to being forcefully fed extreme ends of political stances. So the debate over media and internet missinformation might be for nothing. People adapt arround obstacles. In the end there could only be bots responding to bots and campaign members patting eachother on the back for the number of likes the bots generated.

thephyber 6y ago
> If the majority hide their political views then there is no way to engage with them and ever present your side on issues. Was this ever true? Do the majority of companies encourage talk about religion or the majority of churches encourage talk about politics? The people react to stimuli like {media, campaigns, bots} just like they do any other marketing: there is a game theory response to stimuli. If they get overwhelmed on one platform, they will change habits (eg. move to a different platform, discuss only in person where there are no bots, discuss these topics less). I suspect campaigns have been around long enough that more people (with the help of information widely distributed on the internet) have gained a different tolerance to the same old campaign tricks.

vmception 6y ago

“Yeah but clearly one side is worse” Says people on both sides, unbeknownst to them as they neg the centrist who has the audacity to analyze policies important to them at that point in time.

philipkglass 6y ago

I was raised in a conservative family. My views have shifted greatly leftward over the last 20 years. I avoid sharing my views at work not because I am afraid for myself, but because I don't want to make conservative colleagues of mine feel unwelcome. I prioritize their comfort in our shared work environment over the enjoyment I would derive from a vigorous political argument. We are there together to work on difficult technical and business problems -- not to solve (or even define) what needs changing in American political life. If I want to talk politics, I'll jump into the comments section of a blog.

wry_discontent 6y ago
This is my feeling as well. I've shifted well left of norms in my conservative area, so I tend to stay quiet at work.
Sverigevader 6y ago
I go back and forth on this. I think you can always find people in your life with whom you could have these conversations with. Especially at work I think you'd have a high chance of finding someone with whom you'd actually want to discuss these things because you respect them a lot given their work ethics and personality. They'd have different ideas and thoughts than you but wouldn't try to "convert" you in any way. I don't know... I think discourse with real people in real life is still worth something. The only thing I simply won't discuss with anyone, either online or not, is theology. It will never lead to anything good. I think everyone has to find their own way there.
- EForEndeavour 6y ago
  > The only thing I simply won't discuss with anyone, either online or not, is theology. It will never lead to anything good. I think everyone has to find their own way there. Ultimately, yes, each person must arrive at their own personal set of beliefs and conclusions, if that's what you mean. But surely silent introspection without ever engaging with anyone else can only take one so far? Everyone is exposed to the ideas of others, and discussions often lead to epiphanies or meaningful progress in someone's own personal journey (conversations with counselors and therapists come to mind). Maybe experience will also teach me that theology/spirituality/some other prickly topic is just never worth discussing with anyone, but I also believe that it's possible to have productive discussions about a topic that is this close to what makes us human. ...Sorry, I just realized this post counts as discussing theology with you!

rayiner 6y ago

There is a remarkable corollary in these statistics: > Nearly two‐ thirds of Latino Americans (65%) and White Americans (64%) and nearly half of African Americans (49%) have political views they are afraid to share According to the first chart, 42% of “strong liberals” feel like they can share their political views. That group is disproportionately white: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/27/5-facts-about-black-democrats/ft_20-02-26_factsblackvoters_01 https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/27/5-facts-abo.... So there are all these people of color who are substantially more afraid to share their political views than a group of disproportionately white liberals on the far left.

vmception 6y ago
because no party has ever represented them, only pandered. the affiliation assumptions aren't as strong as people are led to believe, I would say nonexistent.
- malwarebytess 6y ago
  Blanket statements like these are impolitic at best, and utterly wrong at worst.
  - vmception 6y ago
    but more closer to 50% since literally half of the people don’t openly espouse verbatim party line beliefs and dont want people to know, while a much greater percent of the subset that bothers/is enfranchised to vote sticks with one party Reinforcing an assumption, useful for pandering, while with this information another approach could be possible
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > because no party has ever represented them, only pandered. the affiliation assumptions aren't as strong as people are led to believe, From a different item of the same piece, Black Democrats are less likely than White Democrats to prefer compromise with Republicans. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/27/5-facts-about-black-democrats/ft_20-02-26_factsblackvoters_03/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/27/5-facts-abo...

stormdennis 6y ago

Just the other day a tribunal upheld the dismissal of Lecturer who was fired for views expressed in a conversation with his superior. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/southampton-university-lecturer-sacked-woke-culture-remarks-jewish-people-a9632451.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/...

yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
Worth noting that that's not American. I don't know if or how the cultural or legal issues differ, but it's not obviously apples-to-apples.

Barrin92 6y ago

Is there a baseline for how high this was in the past other than the mentioned 58% a few years ago in the article? I can't imagine that there wasn't substantial amounts of this during say, the heights of McCarthyism or when gay-rights weren't as accepted. Not to mention another interesting meta question, are people nowadays more prone to share that they feel like they cannot express their opinion? My grandparents for example have it so ingrained to not question religious belief that they probably wouldn't even perceive it that way. Or just women in general. The stereotypical "housewife" only a few decades ago wasn't participating in public discourse at all and certainly not expected to. With the exception of a few high profile intellectuals women were mostly excluded from political life. I have a hard time even comparing this to today.

non-entity 6y ago
Yeah I dont think it's anything new, just that the opiniond that are taboo are held by a larger chunk of the population
cableshaft 6y ago
I'm sure it existed back then to some extent (and to a large extent in specific periods, such as McCarthyism), but all that predates social media, which makes it so much faster and easier to spread this information to everyone in your life. In those days, you'd have to have someone want to bring it forth to the police or government for anyone to bother, and most people won't know about it until it hits the newspaper, if it does. But now it's the court of public opinion with instant judgement and you can be fired from your job, unfriended or blocked by half your friends, and everyone publicly disavowing any association with you before you even find out about it or have a chance to defend yourself. Which, from what I've seen, rarely makes a difference. The damage is already done and doesn't usually ever get undone. Of course a bunch of people are going to keep their mouths shut on political views in this environment. They want to keep their career and friends.

pessimizer 6y ago

I don't share some of my political beliefs for the same reason I don't talk about my atheism to my grandmother right now, so soon after my grandfather died. While I think they're right, they're both hurtful and unproductive to express. IMO one both should have some views that would bother people (because reason leads one to them), but sometimes choose not to express them because one's opinion isn't the most important thing in the world for other people to hear. I wish the OP meant that 62% of people have a conscience. Instead, I think it means a lot of people are afraid other people will get mad and fire them if they're openly racist. "Strong liberals" are apparently the only people who are proud enough about what they believe to be judged for it. Or maybe it's just impunity because it's illegal to fire people based on race, gender, and (often) sexual orientation, so they feel protected. Overt racists should lobby for similar protections, although I don't think they'll have a lot of luck.

chrisco255 6y ago
The racist label is tossed around so frivolously these days, like Nazi, to become practically meaningless except to intimidate people into silence. The truth is that strong liberals have become extremely aggressive in intimidating and shaming anyone who disagrees with them in the modern era. And it's disturbing and completely corrosive, toxic and destructive. I believe the U.S. needs its right brain and left brain to openly discuss and debate issues because neither side has a monopoly on morality or correctness. Democracy doesn't die in darkness. It dies in uniformity. Have you ever lived in a one party country? It's the closest thing to hell on Earth.
- jahaja 6y ago
  What if the right brain is liberal and the left brain is democratic socialist? Certainly passes the uniformity test.
- thephyber 6y ago
  > Have you ever lived in a one party country? The USA is a one party country -- it's just very good at marketing it as two parties. They never actually solve the problems they claim to care about -- they just keep using the same wedge issues for successive elections. Until we actually have competition from other parties, the two party oligopoly (enforced by entrenched interests at the state level) makes our political system as useless as a one party political system.

Animats 6y ago

Some unpopular facts: - Average US white IQ 99, average US black IQ 85-90, average US asian IQ 105. - Death rate from anorexia, 0.02%. Death rate from obesity, 8%. - Gays/lesbians as percentage of US population: 4-5%. Transgenders, 0.6%. All of those are correct. Watch this get modded down.

beervirus 6y ago
These are violent hate-facts, you nazi. /s

ojnabieoot 6y ago

It is worth pondering what these "political views" are. A huge number of white people (and a distressing number of nonwhites) believe in racist pseudoscience, and are justifiably afraid of expressing that view in polite company. If one of my employees said "whites are on average more intelligent than blacks," either in the office or on Facebook, I would fire them, even if it's probably true that most whites feel this way. If I had an employee that held such views, then darn right they should be afraid to talk about it. The Cato poll indicates that the biggest difference in "self-censorship" occurs among conservatives. I suspect this is because most conservatives know that supporting Donald Trump is morally indefensible, and don't want to talk about why exactly they are still voting for the most corrupt president in American history.

thephyber 6y ago
The red/blue split could simply be different perceptions based on consumption of different partisan media diets.

throwaway023421 6y ago

129 comments and nobody pointed out that cato institute is a right wing "think tank". And that the way the survey is phrased clearly hints that conservatives are being silenced while "Strong liberals stand out as the only political group who feel they can express themselves" Ironically, a survey on the political spectrum depicts such spectrum as "liberal vs conservative". Excellent display of Overton window at work. I wonder if "hacker" news is going to downvote me to hell for saying this.

justanotheranon 6y ago

the saddest thing is while us Plebs persecute each other over which wrestler we like, the real power structure running America remains invisible and unchallenged. neither Biden or Trump have as much power as our Media Overlords have fooled us into believing. The President is largely the head cheerleader of Team America. they can tweet, they can give a speech, but they cannot control the Deep State one iota. Back in 2009, I remember Obama said one of the most insightful things Ive heard any President say. He said the FedGov is like a ship and all he can do is turn the rudder to aim us in a given direction, but we wont arrive for 10 or 20 years. personally, i think MAGAtards are just as blind as DemonRats. i guess that opinion means i have to be extra careful expressing my views at work, because i'll get Canceled by both the Left and the Right for heresy against their UniParty-WarParty othodoxy. honk. honk.

supergrumpybear 6y ago

I think there needs to be a distinction between political ideas and political ideologies. Especially in the United States, where there's an obsession between the GOP and the DCCC, even though neither political party represents a majority. When you ask respondents on political ideas, like voting rights, immigration, state welfare, infrastructure, etc, a much broader and more moderate viewpoint emerges. Also there seems to be a more growing disconnect between people in power and the masses. I think as data science becomes a more developed craft, more people will become aware about the motivations of our political actors. Sensationalism and political correctness are usually signs of a deeper problem---

DevKoala 6y ago

This doesn't surprise me. I am also afraid to express myself for fear of being rejected by most of my friends or excluded from my professional network. It is sad that I can only be honest and say things such as "let's wait for the facts" under a nickname on some dark corner of the web.

Traster 6y ago
Maybe take some self-examination. Your friends should be your most sympathetic audience, if you're afraid of expressing your opinions even to them, maybe you need to have an honest converstaion either with yoursself or with them.
- DevKoala 6y ago
  My family is my most sympathetic audience. Also, my closest friends understand me well and accept who I am. However, I have tons of friends apart from the groups mentioned above; people that I appreciate, whom I have met through different hobbies or passions. None of these bonds have a connection to politics, but it is common for some of them to bring up political topics during these months. I reserve my opinions on these topics because I understand that there are a lot of emotions involved. Moreover, we all have biases. We are not at war, we just digress on the solutions the country needs.

Ijumfs 6y ago

I work for one of the Big Three and I can't let anybody know I support Trump. The threat of being harassed at work and home, being fired or passed over for promotions, it's too much to risk. So I will continue to wear my Biden shirt to work once every fortnight and take Trump secretly with me into the ballot box. EDIT: already downvoted. Confirming what everybody knows, there is a war against non-lefties.

malwarebytess 6y ago
I mean, I would fire you. Anyone who genuinely thinks Donald Trump is the best leader for this country after seeing 4 years of his leadership probably isn't wise enough to handle the work.

nickgrosvenor 6y ago

Things like twitter have unwittingly become Orwellian. A log of everything you've ever said and thought for the rest of the world to see. This is why the future of the internet is going to be a closed end internet. Something that isn't accessible by everyone. Whether through paid entry, invitation, or geography, the future of the internet is going be more closed end than it is now. The open ended internet of today will become a junk yard of spam and identity thieves in the future. Early adopters and rich people were the first to get on the internet and they'll be the fist to get off of it too. For something more private.

dhosek 6y ago

The poll is a bit flawed. What exactly are people afraid to share? If it's "black people don't deserve rights," that's a good thing.

Shivetya 6y ago

try being a Libertarian but work is not the place to discuss politics or sex. it is dangerous to have an opinion on anything other than sports and even then only at the team level.

mathgladiator 6y ago
Try liking Ayn Rand.

joe_the_user 6y ago

Is it wrong to say some beliefs should be "shamed away"? The thing is, aside from traditional liberal and conservative views, it has been documented how the Internet gives play to a variety of essentially delusional belief systems; flat-earth, anti-vax, 5G fears, "crisis actor" conspiracies, etc. Basically, things that in earlier times someone might imagine one day but give up through realizing that their friends and neighbors might (correctly) think they were crazy if they continued to entertain such idea. And this isn't to say such ideas are absolutely distinct from political ideas - just about any type of delusion is now given a particular kind of political spin since the committedly delusional are an easily directed group. The situation is - once people got their ideas from the neighbors and maybe their schools and churches. Gradually, they came to also get their ideas from mass media. This was already somewhat artificial but at least it kept a single social authority. Now, people get their ideas from mass media and "the Internet"("dispersed", "narrow-cast" media), with mass media struggling to keep up some unity of beliefs (though mass media itself easily cast as a manipulator of its own sort).

malwarebytess 6y ago
I don't think it's necessarily wrong. All society is is norms and taboo. If someone is violating the social norms and/or breaking taboo the natural response is social shaming. This can have negative consequences but it's hard to argue that it is wrong to do this all of the time.

munificent 6y ago

I think a big part of this is that the definition of "say" has changed dramatically in the past decade. Today, people interpret that to mean, in part at least, "broadcast on the Internet where I have no control over the audience and where it will be recorded digitally and available indefinitely". 10-20 years ago "saying" just meant verbalizing something around a handful of people you could see. You'd know who you were talking to, and if you said something dumb, human memory and time would soften its edges eventually. Ask people in the 1990s if they would self-censor themselves when appearing on TV and they'd probably say yes at the same rate that people say they self-censor when "talking" today, in large part because computers are such a large medium of communication now.

coronadisaster 6y ago

Americans are afraid a lot... Of the police among other things.

boomboomsubban 6y ago

The actual question asked was >The political climate these days prevents me from saying things I believe because others might find them offensive With the 62% includes anyone who "strongly agrees" or "somewhat agrees." I would answer "somewhat agrees" to that question, not because I'm afraid to share my beliefs but that I don't want to discuss the topic or I'm not knowledgeable enough to have confidence discussing my beliefs.

8bitsrule 6y ago

I'm not too concerned about people in "the land of the brave, the home of the free" who feel unable to express themselves in words. Their actions (or lack thereof) speak much louder than any words. Injustice is self-evident, and 'I know it when I see it.'

Traster 6y ago

For those that don't know, you can set a setting in your profile "showdead" that will show you the views that got "flagged" as not to be on hackernews. This is an inherently political thread and you probably want to know what people beyond the majority agree with. I mean in a literal sense it's quite funny that if you express a bad political opinion on HN you'll be hidden from view. That would seem counter-productive in inherently political discussions. I know HN doesn't want to get into politics, and maybe there's a discission to be had about priviledge there, but I think the first step would atleast to be seeing what people are actually saying.

Alupis 6y ago

The very fact this article was flagged and banished from the front page so quickly, really speaks volumes towards the study's point - does it not?

replyifuagree 6y ago

These day did you want to know how people are going to vote, you have to ask them how their neighbor is going to vote.

DenisM 6y ago
That's a very interesting idea. Do you think people will be more forthcoming this way?
- replyifuagree 6y ago
  I think that's one of the techniques used by Robert Cahaly to predict the Trump victory. He calls it "social desirability bias” I read something where he thinks that the bias is even worse this time around, he's calculated Trump down by 3 points right now.
  - DenisM 6y ago
    > he's calculated Trump down by 3 points right now Do you mean Trump has less support this election by 3% compared to the last election?

GoodJokes 6y ago

ITT: people who think they know stuff about political science.

stmfreak 6y ago

Cancel culture has quenched political discussion. It’s impossible to share views, even among coworkers you might consider friends, without serious risk to one’s employment. The effect is likely more polarization since we cannot moderate each other’s opinions with stories of our own experiences.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> Cancel culture has quenched political discussion. To the extent “cancel culture” describes something new, it has not. > It’s impossible to share views, even among coworkers you might consider friends, without serious risk to one’s employment. It always has been, for certain views. Which views are more safe and which are more dangerous has changed over time. People who think that it has suddenly become dangerous is people who have views that have recently become less privileged in this context.
- thaneross 6y ago
  I can tell you, mentioning I'm in a polyamorous relationship with my coworkers feels _less safe_ today then it did 5 years ago. People before didn't really understand (they still don't) but I usually encountered an attitude of live-and-let-live tolerance. Today I get 3 reactions: conservatives who are afraid to say anything so they avoid me, progressives who treat me like some kind of novelty, and the rest who don't care. I don't consider this progress.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    I suspect that specific issue is less to do with “cancel culture” and more to do with and more to do with polygamy and polyandry in recent years becoming,among other things, reality TV fodder and thus issues that are more in the public consciousness and about which people are more likely to have come to a somewhat firm opinion on.
    - thaneross 6y ago
      That doesn't match my experience. People are afraid to speak openly to me and that does me a disservice.

madhadron 6y ago

Looking at the methodology it looks like a reasonably conducted survey, but it has a basic methodological flaw: it cannot distinguish between any particular models, such as "a privileged group oppressing contrary beliefs" versus "the peace treaty of tolerance is functioning and bigots must suppress their beliefs to keep its protections." Further, the causes of self censorship need not be identical. Both of the two models I just posited can be in play at the same time in various subpopulations and around various issues. And there are lots of group/individual relations you can posit for this. Social science is hard. So this data set might be an interesting preliminary trial, but releasing it as a finished study is either sloppy or malicious on the part of the Cato Institute. Edit: Reading the other comments on here, I'm inclined towards malicious as it seems spun to create just the kind of rhetoric that we're seeing here.

anonmidniteshpr 6y ago

From the IPCC imposter report climate-change denial billionaires shop, that's a rich and trustworthy factoid.

richardxlin 6y ago

Interesting skewed the numbers are towards Republicans. I wonder if this will reflect in the upcoming elections.

thomk 6y ago

This used to simply be called "It isn't polite to talk about politics". Most people are compassionate and simply don't want to upset others or ruin a pleasant visit.

powerapple 6y ago

That's really nice. World is so much better with fewer political views. I like a racist who can keep his/her views to him/her-self to be honest. To be honest, when people say there is some political views they are afraid to share, it is not about budget spending, or military operation in Syria I bet.

nlitened 6y ago
Looks like they might be afraid of exactly this kind of black-and-white labeling

deanCommie 6y ago

almost 500 comments and noone mentioned that the Cato institute has a fairly strong conservative bias: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cato-institute/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cato-institute/ If someone says something racist, they are exercising free speech. If someone in return calls that out for being racist, and shames them, they are ALSO exercising free speech. So long as the government does not punish either of them, noone's Free Speech is being compromised. But the outcome of this exchange is that the first person is going to claim repression then vote in this survey and say they are afraid to share their political views. Frankly, the only problem I see is people's inability to introspect.

droptablemain 6y ago

Conservatives are making this all about them. Reality is more nuanced than that. For example, as a communist, I have to be extremely discerning about the context under which I share my political views. Sixty-plus years of American anti-communist propaganda has a pretty damning effect. And that type of political suppression, conservatives generally agree with. So let's not pretend like the broader Right consists of champions of liberty or anything.

shadowgovt 6y ago

More interesting is the cause: "because others might find them offensive." Americans are discovering that freedom of speech doesn't imply freedom from societal consequences over what people heard, and the Internet has amplified everyone's speech such that the radius of hearing is out of one's control if one decides to say something on the loud channels.