6 ms·

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

33 points by bko 6y ago

abakus 6y ago
Yes, even here, people are more reluctant to comment on political related news, being afraid of getting downvoted to oblivion.
- xscott 6y ago
  Not just politics... Although maybe we could argue that all of the other taboo topics have become politics, and that's part of the problem.
JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
Reminder this means 38% aren't afraid to share those views. The article mentions specifically in the workplace. For a time, I worked under a VP in a large public software company that wouldn't let anyone under him reimburse alcohol sales on team outings (food was fine; there was no objection to team outings to build rapport, either). It was strange, it stood opposite to company-wide policy of permitting employed-provided alcohol, and it likely had an inconsequential effect on his career, but he did push his personal views on his reporting chain.
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  Was there a political motivation you suspected? You haven't elaborated. Or do you feel that the decision to not cover alcohol as a work expense is inherently political somehow?
- kerng 6y ago
  Missing the point here. What does not wanting to reimburse alcohol in this case have to do with politics? Can you maybe share more context? Is the idea because people get drunk and talk politics?
  - JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
    As a society, we visited this topic quite some time ago and it was the 18th amendment. It was an incredibly political moment for our country.
    - happytoexplain 6y ago
      You seem to be expressing some personal sensitivity here. If this person was disparaging people who drink alcohol (or was pushing for making alcohol illegal), you should specify that. All you've said is that they didn't cover it as a work expense - it's a controlled, mind-altering substance, so that's totally non-political given no additional motivations.
      - JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
        The organization had an established policy, permitting employer-provided alcohol at work social functions. He pushed a personal view, without the consent of his management, to the maximal extent his role gave him.
        happytoexplain 6y ago
        >He pushed a personal view, without the consent of his management You should have said this originally. I can understand if this was some crusade he was pursuing, but nobody could infer that from your original post. Also, you should really consider how ironic it is, in a thread about people being afraid to express political opinions, that, when asked how not reimbursing alcohol is political, you responded with a hyperbolic analogy in a sarcastic tone to the effect of "we had this thing called prohibition" (you've since edited that comment, though the tone mostly remains).
        JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
        By stating it "wasn't company policy", I had imagined it was clear it was a personal decision, overriding the rest of the company. I have updated my comment to reflect this.
locopati 6y ago
i wonder how mnay of those views are "i don't believe X people should have the same basic rights as the majority"
- seankimdesign 6y ago
  I doubt a high percentage includes outright bigots and morons. The way I see it, it's opinions such as disagreement with ACAB movement, viewing looters as fundamentally doing more harm then good, and other sensitive topics such as affirmative action damaging the "out of fashion" minorities such as Asian Americans. People are careful not to speak loudly about these opinions due to the fear that they're in the minority and will be branded as the enemy of the modern day "progressives".
  - mthoms 6y ago
    >viewing looters as fundamentally doing more harm then good Almost nobody would disagree with that statement but I'm sure you know that. Suggesting that the majority on the left (aka "progressives") support the looting is extremely disingenuous. It's plainly obvious what the real purpose of a comment like that is.
    - seankimdesign 6y ago
      That's exactly my point. Almost nobody, when debating under mutual good will and faith, would have much to disagree with any of the topics I've touched on. These are sensible, human-centered talking points that have somehow become branded taboo because any attempt to discuss topics that might cast an ounce of blame away from the conservatives is being branded as wrongthink and as "derailing the conversation". It's funny how you yourself have immediately labelled me as being a non-left having read the comment that I made. Our most urgent threat may be the right wing conservatives at this very moment, but sooner or later we will face a real reckoning with what we thought were our most outspoken allies. Be careful with how you use the term progressives, because thought policing and book burning is anything but.
  - LoSboccacc 6y ago
DeonPenny 6y ago
It's insane how we got here, but its not surprising. Since 2016 political speech especially conservative views are being seen more and more not like a politician stances but an all encompassing bigoted ideology regardless of the data and proof behind such stances. While I personally haven't lived long enough to see a swing in the rights direction I feel like the left condemnation of everything on the right it's going to easily bite them in the butt eventually. I bet its happened this way in the past.
- bE9a3S5So8igd3 6y ago
  Impossible! This person with karma on HN said that no one's avoiding commentary for fear of mob retribution: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23820046 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23820046 The reality here is that if you're a leftist, you may well be under the impression that people are in fact overcommunicating ever minor, pointless, faux-activist idea that pops into their head. If you're not a leftist, of course you're self-censoring constantly, despite how bold and idiotic the mob's ideas may be.
- david38 6y ago
  They don’t have to conservative. They just have to be not cutting edge. Believe there is a difference between feeling and being? “Feel assaulted” by words is now described as “being assaulted”. “Feel like a woman” is now “is a woman” through some linguistic slight of hand by a) saying gender is how you feel and b) saying when you say man/woman you mean gender, not sex. By redefining commonly used words those who wish to change society to fit their view have managed to get tons of people to silently go along because well, that’s what the words mean now. Very first amendment- freedom of speech. How do you get around this? Classify everything as hate speech and “verbal assault”. Playing the victim has become so fashionable lately, everyone is trying to jump in it. Black? You can go back to the time of slaves in the when no living remembers. Woman? Women are always victims and have no agency, regardless of the facts. If you have no agency, you can’t be blamed for anything. It used to be women could blame all men for everything. Since BLM, they aren’t allowed to blame black or Hispanic men. The list goes on. Now we are left with just white straight men who have all the power and (only) evil in the world. Except it will crumble. As people gleefully engage in activities they once protested, those pesky cell phone videos make it onto YouTube. Right now it’s a bunch of Karens. Funny how that tries to get explained away. Soon you’ll see the rise in videos of bad behavior from the other protected groups. The real death of this I think will be when more “white saviors” try to get in on the action and do more than say stupid shit on social media to score points. They’ll start to actively engage with the people they pity. If they do it for any length of time, they’ll realize these poor suffering babies are people, like anyone else. I’m a minority and find it amusing when we’re described in such infantile terms. Date a few of us, get involved, and suddenly “oh you guys have so much family drama!” or “why do you make such bad decisions?” Hahaha welcome to the club. Stop talking about race and start talking about decisions, poverty, etc. Yes poverty is talked about, but only allowed if you’re not white. If you’re black, you’re poor because of racism. If you’re white, without batting an eye, you’re designated white trash.
recursivedoubts 6y ago
The non-violent answer to this polarization and hysteria is subsidiarity and devolution of political power to the various states. Libertarianism at the state level. We will not pick this answer, and, if we did, it would not be allowed. "You are an Acceptable Level of Threat and If You Were Not You Would Know About it"
tabbycorn 6y ago
Can you blame them? There's examples already. Brendan Eich got witch hunted out of Mozilla when somebody discovered some $3000 worth of donations to causes that don't align with the loudest voices of today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich#Mozilla https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich#Mozilla
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  >witch hunted [for] donations to causes [to ban gay marriage] that don't align with the loudest voices of today Regardless of whether I agree that this is a good example, you're embodying the exact same problem the article is lamenting from the politically opposite side.
  - tabbycorn 6y ago
    What do you mean, because I created a throwaway account to comment?
- elil17 6y ago
  “Causes that that don’t align with the loudest voices of today” is a funny way of writing “a campaign to ban gay people from getting married.” Not all views are equally valid. Some are antithetical to a free and equal society and are deserving of harsh criticism. There’s nothing wrong with a society where people feel uncomfortable saying that they think their peers don’t deserve equal rights.
  - tabbycorn 6y ago
    > There’s nothing wrong with a society where people feel uncomfortable saying that they think their peers don’t deserve equal rights. It's possible that the reason he donated was because he disagreed with the particular wording of the proposition as written, not that he thinks his peers don't deserve equal rights. And for the tiny donation, he lost his job. He's unfit for employment in tech, it seems, unless he's the owner of the company. That is a chilling effect. Suddenly people who aren't perfectly in alignment with, again, the loudest voices, have to choose their every word (and donation) perfectly or risk losing their livelihood. Consider that there are fiscal conservatives who think that we don't get nearly enough value from our tax dollars, so we should reduce taxes. Can they donate to conservative causes without losing their jobs? Can you imagine the insanity if voting records got leaked?
jgwil2 6y ago
Previously discussed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23932321 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23932321
JohnTHaller 6y ago
Most of the 'staunch liberals' I know select companies that align with their values. Some don't (the 42% of them that don't feel they can speak their politics) and are or have been working in companies where they know they'll get fired or passed over if they speak ill of Trumpism, particularly in finance and accounting.
Yetanfou 6y ago
I live in Sweden where we've been having similar problems for a long time. I used to look at the US as a flawed (but not flawed beyond repair) example of a state where the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression worked as a bulwark against the oppressive political climate we've become known for in Sweden. I would never have thought that in just a few years time the USA would overtake Sweden on this front. Where the 'åsiktskorridor' (literally 'opinion corridor', more or less comparable to the Overton window) in Sweden is gradually opening up, the opposite seems to be happening in the USA and those constitutional guarantees don't guarantee anything since they only apply to interactions between the state and the individual while the oppression comes from non-governmental groups. This oppressive climate where opinions are not shared has no positives at all, zero, nada, zip, zilch. All it does is create suspicion, doubt and division where in other circumstances a few words would have broken the ice and allowed understanding and trust to grow. In a society where the meaning of words keeps on being changed so as to weaponise them and the wrong word at the wrong moment can get you fired, where the common history is being demonised, where shared culture is divided into ethnic enclaves which are only deemed appropriate for those of the 'correct' ethnicity... the outlook is bleak. This type of activism used to be limited to the most extreme corners of academia but it has escaped into the wild and is spreading like wildfire. The more it spreads, the more violent the reaction will be. In Sweden we will eventually overcome our difficulties now that it has become so obvious that those who pushed the agenda were wrong. These people will not be held accountable, they will keep their jobs, most of them will act as if they had no part in the suppression of those with differing opinions even when confronted with hard evidence of their complicity. This is the way things work here, it is the way things have worked here for a long time - at least since WWII. What will happen in the USA when those who use Orwell's 1984 as a user manual lose momentum is up for grabs. The response better be measured and civilised or the gains of decades of civil rights work stands to be undone. The sooner those of sane mind of all ethnicities get together to call a halt to this madness, the better. Get at it before it is too late.

33 points by bko 6y ago

Yes, even here, people are more reluctant to comment on political related news, being afraid of getting downvoted to oblivion.

xscott 6y ago
Not just politics... Although maybe we could argue that all of the other taboo topics have become politics, and that's part of the problem.

JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago

Reminder this means 38% aren't afraid to share those views. The article mentions specifically in the workplace. For a time, I worked under a VP in a large public software company that wouldn't let anyone under him reimburse alcohol sales on team outings (food was fine; there was no objection to team outings to build rapport, either). It was strange, it stood opposite to company-wide policy of permitting employed-provided alcohol, and it likely had an inconsequential effect on his career, but he did push his personal views on his reporting chain.

happytoexplain 6y ago
Was there a political motivation you suspected? You haven't elaborated. Or do you feel that the decision to not cover alcohol as a work expense is inherently political somehow?
kerng 6y ago
Missing the point here. What does not wanting to reimburse alcohol in this case have to do with politics? Can you maybe share more context? Is the idea because people get drunk and talk politics?
- JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
  As a society, we visited this topic quite some time ago and it was the 18th amendment. It was an incredibly political moment for our country.
  - happytoexplain 6y ago
    You seem to be expressing some personal sensitivity here. If this person was disparaging people who drink alcohol (or was pushing for making alcohol illegal), you should specify that. All you've said is that they didn't cover it as a work expense - it's a controlled, mind-altering substance, so that's totally non-political given no additional motivations.
    - JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
      The organization had an established policy, permitting employer-provided alcohol at work social functions. He pushed a personal view, without the consent of his management, to the maximal extent his role gave him.
      - happytoexplain 6y ago
        >He pushed a personal view, without the consent of his management You should have said this originally. I can understand if this was some crusade he was pursuing, but nobody could infer that from your original post. Also, you should really consider how ironic it is, in a thread about people being afraid to express political opinions, that, when asked how not reimbursing alcohol is political, you responded with a hyperbolic analogy in a sarcastic tone to the effect of "we had this thing called prohibition" (you've since edited that comment, though the tone mostly remains).
        JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
        By stating it "wasn't company policy", I had imagined it was clear it was a personal decision, overriding the rest of the company. I have updated my comment to reflect this.

locopati 6y ago

i wonder how mnay of those views are "i don't believe X people should have the same basic rights as the majority"

seankimdesign 6y ago
I doubt a high percentage includes outright bigots and morons. The way I see it, it's opinions such as disagreement with ACAB movement, viewing looters as fundamentally doing more harm then good, and other sensitive topics such as affirmative action damaging the "out of fashion" minorities such as Asian Americans. People are careful not to speak loudly about these opinions due to the fear that they're in the minority and will be branded as the enemy of the modern day "progressives".
- mthoms 6y ago
  >viewing looters as fundamentally doing more harm then good Almost nobody would disagree with that statement but I'm sure you know that. Suggesting that the majority on the left (aka "progressives") support the looting is extremely disingenuous. It's plainly obvious what the real purpose of a comment like that is.
  - seankimdesign 6y ago
    That's exactly my point. Almost nobody, when debating under mutual good will and faith, would have much to disagree with any of the topics I've touched on. These are sensible, human-centered talking points that have somehow become branded taboo because any attempt to discuss topics that might cast an ounce of blame away from the conservatives is being branded as wrongthink and as "derailing the conversation". It's funny how you yourself have immediately labelled me as being a non-left having read the comment that I made. Our most urgent threat may be the right wing conservatives at this very moment, but sooner or later we will face a real reckoning with what we thought were our most outspoken allies. Be careful with how you use the term progressives, because thought policing and book burning is anything but.
- LoSboccacc 6y ago

DeonPenny 6y ago

It's insane how we got here, but its not surprising. Since 2016 political speech especially conservative views are being seen more and more not like a politician stances but an all encompassing bigoted ideology regardless of the data and proof behind such stances. While I personally haven't lived long enough to see a swing in the rights direction I feel like the left condemnation of everything on the right it's going to easily bite them in the butt eventually. I bet its happened this way in the past.

bE9a3S5So8igd3 6y ago
Impossible! This person with karma on HN said that no one's avoiding commentary for fear of mob retribution: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23820046 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23820046 The reality here is that if you're a leftist, you may well be under the impression that people are in fact overcommunicating ever minor, pointless, faux-activist idea that pops into their head. If you're not a leftist, of course you're self-censoring constantly, despite how bold and idiotic the mob's ideas may be.
david38 6y ago
They don’t have to conservative. They just have to be not cutting edge. Believe there is a difference between feeling and being? “Feel assaulted” by words is now described as “being assaulted”. “Feel like a woman” is now “is a woman” through some linguistic slight of hand by a) saying gender is how you feel and b) saying when you say man/woman you mean gender, not sex. By redefining commonly used words those who wish to change society to fit their view have managed to get tons of people to silently go along because well, that’s what the words mean now. Very first amendment- freedom of speech. How do you get around this? Classify everything as hate speech and “verbal assault”. Playing the victim has become so fashionable lately, everyone is trying to jump in it. Black? You can go back to the time of slaves in the when no living remembers. Woman? Women are always victims and have no agency, regardless of the facts. If you have no agency, you can’t be blamed for anything. It used to be women could blame all men for everything. Since BLM, they aren’t allowed to blame black or Hispanic men. The list goes on. Now we are left with just white straight men who have all the power and (only) evil in the world. Except it will crumble. As people gleefully engage in activities they once protested, those pesky cell phone videos make it onto YouTube. Right now it’s a bunch of Karens. Funny how that tries to get explained away. Soon you’ll see the rise in videos of bad behavior from the other protected groups. The real death of this I think will be when more “white saviors” try to get in on the action and do more than say stupid shit on social media to score points. They’ll start to actively engage with the people they pity. If they do it for any length of time, they’ll realize these poor suffering babies are people, like anyone else. I’m a minority and find it amusing when we’re described in such infantile terms. Date a few of us, get involved, and suddenly “oh you guys have so much family drama!” or “why do you make such bad decisions?” Hahaha welcome to the club. Stop talking about race and start talking about decisions, poverty, etc. Yes poverty is talked about, but only allowed if you’re not white. If you’re black, you’re poor because of racism. If you’re white, without batting an eye, you’re designated white trash.

recursivedoubts 6y ago

The non-violent answer to this polarization and hysteria is subsidiarity and devolution of political power to the various states. Libertarianism at the state level. We will not pick this answer, and, if we did, it would not be allowed. "You are an Acceptable Level of Threat and If You Were Not You Would Know About it"

tabbycorn 6y ago

Can you blame them? There's examples already. Brendan Eich got witch hunted out of Mozilla when somebody discovered some $3000 worth of donations to causes that don't align with the loudest voices of today. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich#Mozilla https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich#Mozilla

happytoexplain 6y ago
>witch hunted [for] donations to causes [to ban gay marriage] that don't align with the loudest voices of today Regardless of whether I agree that this is a good example, you're embodying the exact same problem the article is lamenting from the politically opposite side.
- tabbycorn 6y ago
  What do you mean, because I created a throwaway account to comment?
elil17 6y ago
“Causes that that don’t align with the loudest voices of today” is a funny way of writing “a campaign to ban gay people from getting married.” Not all views are equally valid. Some are antithetical to a free and equal society and are deserving of harsh criticism. There’s nothing wrong with a society where people feel uncomfortable saying that they think their peers don’t deserve equal rights.
- tabbycorn 6y ago
  > There’s nothing wrong with a society where people feel uncomfortable saying that they think their peers don’t deserve equal rights. It's possible that the reason he donated was because he disagreed with the particular wording of the proposition as written, not that he thinks his peers don't deserve equal rights. And for the tiny donation, he lost his job. He's unfit for employment in tech, it seems, unless he's the owner of the company. That is a chilling effect. Suddenly people who aren't perfectly in alignment with, again, the loudest voices, have to choose their every word (and donation) perfectly or risk losing their livelihood. Consider that there are fiscal conservatives who think that we don't get nearly enough value from our tax dollars, so we should reduce taxes. Can they donate to conservative causes without losing their jobs? Can you imagine the insanity if voting records got leaked?

jgwil2 6y ago

Previously discussed: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23932321 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23932321

JohnTHaller 6y ago

Most of the 'staunch liberals' I know select companies that align with their values. Some don't (the 42% of them that don't feel they can speak their politics) and are or have been working in companies where they know they'll get fired or passed over if they speak ill of Trumpism, particularly in finance and accounting.

Yetanfou 6y ago

I live in Sweden where we've been having similar problems for a long time. I used to look at the US as a flawed (but not flawed beyond repair) example of a state where the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression worked as a bulwark against the oppressive political climate we've become known for in Sweden. I would never have thought that in just a few years time the USA would overtake Sweden on this front. Where the 'åsiktskorridor' (literally 'opinion corridor', more or less comparable to the Overton window) in Sweden is gradually opening up, the opposite seems to be happening in the USA and those constitutional guarantees don't guarantee anything since they only apply to interactions between the state and the individual while the oppression comes from non-governmental groups. This oppressive climate where opinions are not shared has no positives at all, zero, nada, zip, zilch. All it does is create suspicion, doubt and division where in other circumstances a few words would have broken the ice and allowed understanding and trust to grow. In a society where the meaning of words keeps on being changed so as to weaponise them and the wrong word at the wrong moment can get you fired, where the common history is being demonised, where shared culture is divided into ethnic enclaves which are only deemed appropriate for those of the 'correct' ethnicity... the outlook is bleak. This type of activism used to be limited to the most extreme corners of academia but it has escaped into the wild and is spreading like wildfire. The more it spreads, the more violent the reaction will be. In Sweden we will eventually overcome our difficulties now that it has become so obvious that those who pushed the agenda were wrong. These people will not be held accountable, they will keep their jobs, most of them will act as if they had no part in the suppression of those with differing opinions even when confronted with hard evidence of their complicity. This is the way things work here, it is the way things have worked here for a long time - at least since WWII. What will happen in the USA when those who use Orwell's 1984 as a user manual lose momentum is up for grabs. The response better be measured and civilised or the gains of decades of civil rights work stands to be undone. The sooner those of sane mind of all ethnicities get together to call a halt to this madness, the better. Get at it before it is too late.