8 ms·

62% Say the Political Climate Prevents Them from Sharing Political Views

60 points by Reedx 6y ago

12xo 6y ago
This. We created an unrealistic climate where politics is personal and not to be discussed. Its anything but personal and it should be discussed at length whenever possible where ever possible. The worst thing we as a society can do, is continue this idea that one should not discuss one's ideals. That's why we have so many ignorant people who find comfort in silos. They have never developed the skills necessary to think past their beliefs. BTW: that's what a liberal education is all about. Challenging your ideals and pushing your intellectual limits. And that's a great thing for people and for humanity. Insularity breeds crazy. Always.
- ilaksh 6y ago
  I mean, when I say what I really think my comments get buried. Or just ignored.
  - dkdk8283 6y ago
    I get called a nazi. I’m half Jewish. Incredibly insensitive of many people equating words with death.
    - lalaland1125 6y ago
      I mean, just going by your prior comment history ... > I prefer beautiful women to hand out beverages and snacks on my flight; something that sadly appears to be a dying trend.
      - ghufran_syed 6y ago
        Because nazis were noticably different in the kind of people they had handing out beverages on their planes?
        esyir 6y ago
        OP's point gets confirmed really fast even here, doesn't it.
      - SamPatt 6y ago
        How is that comment relevant to him being called a Nazi?
      - dang 6y ago
        Please don't bring in people's history as ammunition in an argument. That's a trope of the online shaming/callout culture, and the systemic effects are really horrible. We want to avoid those outcomes here. https://hn.algolia.com/?query=online%20shaming%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment&dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true https://hn.algolia.com/?query=online%20shaming%20by%3Adang&s... Also, HN threads are supposed to be conversations, and it's better conversation to respond to what someone is saying now.
        shadowgovt 6y ago
        Open question: In what ways are the systemic effects of online shaming/call-out culture horrible?
        dang 6y ago
        It's a good question. Sadly, I can't answer it properly because there isn't time to think properly. Briefly though: it normalizes aggression as the default mode toward people who have some point of difference from oneself.
    - fearfulofview4 6y ago
      The two are not mutually incompatible.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  It's more that we created a climate where academic discussion, devil's advocacy, and outright anti-human political stances are no longer tolerated in the public sphere without comment and ridicule, because we watched how they are both used to derail progress on important topics and how they provide fascists, nationalists, and racial supremacists and opportunity to find each other and organize. I perceive the Wild West that the internet started as to be in a phase of cooling and public consumption, where that cooling is including cracking and bifurcation. Sections of society are not finding common ground and likely will not find common ground in my lifetime, but the systems we have built are tuned towards global broadcast bidirectional communication right now, not quiet conversation. It will be interesting to me to see how that changes.
  - 12xo 6y ago
    People find a lot of comfort with the validation of their own ideas from others. And since that comfort translates into community, they seek out others of similar feather. I am afraid that this behavior paired with the "personalized" algorithms are a big part of the problem. Instead of pushing people to facts and figures, new ideas and uncomfortable positions, the systems are instead designed to do the opposite. Hide those things in order to hold attention. Remember: Attention is the currency of media. Pair the online phenomenon with the false equivalencies created by right-wing media. That "their ignorance is the same as your knowledge", and you create our current political and social environment ripe for exploit. We now have a whole lot of people who think they're right because they find others who also think they are right.
curation 6y ago
"the contemporary era is, undeniably, one of separation, hate movements, hostility, and, above all, struggle against an enemy. Consequently, liberal democracies - already considerably leached by the forces of capital, technology, and militarism - are now being sucked into a colossal process of inversion." - Necropolitics pg 42.
hayd 6y ago
Now if only the other 38% would shut the hell up as well.
wombatmobile 6y ago
The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries. -- Wikipedia
- finnthehuman 6y ago
  Please just say whatever it is that you're trying to imply.
  - wombatmobile 6y ago
    What makes you sure I'm trying to imply something? I've provided context by identifying the interests behind Cato Institute, which is the organisation that conducted the poll and wrote the article. Have you inferred something from what I wrote? If so, would you like to say what that is?
    - bananabiscuit 6y ago
      I’m also curious what the point of your comment was. Can you please stop being so coy and just tell us!
      - wombatmobile 6y ago
        The only comment I have at this point is that the survey report doesn't help me to know what to expect if I were to visit a large number of American workplaces. The terms are too vague, and the methodology too opaque. What is "the political climate"? How are people supposed to measure it? Do people in each of the 2,000 workplaces that supplied respondents understand the same thing of this term, or something different? What does "liberal" mean? Economically liberal? Socially liberal? Sexually liberal? Intellectually liberal? Measured how? Same for "conservative". Even if the categories are self-selected, unless those terms are defined, how do we know what they mean? Is someone who believes the marginal rate of tax should be lower for wage income than for investment income and sex should only occur for procreation within a marriage whilst one participant is blindfolded and opiated, conservative, or liberal, and how staunchly so? For this question: "Are you worried about losing your job or missing out on job opportunities if your political opinions became known?" a higher number of "Conservative" respondents indicated worry than "Very conservative" respondents. What are we to make of that? Could it have something to do with whether conservative respondents are employed in conservative workplaces or liberal workplaces? The data doesn't give us any insight. What does the survey methodology tell us? "The Cato Institute Summer 2020 National Survey was conducted by the Cato Institute in collaboration with YouGov who fielded the survey. YouGov interviewed 2,108 American adults from July 1-6, 2020 who were then matched into a nationally representative sample of 2,000 Americans aged 18 and older. The margin of error is +/- 2.36 percentage points. This does not include other sources of non-sampling error, such as selection bias in panel participation or response to a particular survey. " Without any insight into the selection method, or the selection bias, the survey could mean anything. Or nothing with respect to the actual America that comprises 350 million people. But consider the opening claim of the article text: "A new Cato Institute/ YouGov national survey of 2,000 Americans finds that 62% of Americans say the political climate these days prevents them from saying things they believe because others might find them offensive. This is up from 2017 when 58% agreed with this statement." The survey did not find what "62% of Americans believe". It only found what 62% of 2,000 survey respondents answered in response to particular questions. There is a difference. We just have no way of knowing what that difference is. The reported change between 2017 and 2020, of 4 percentage points, is less than the cumulative margin of error of +/- 2.36 percentage points each for the two polls. So what is the new survey telling us? Are Americans more sensitive about offending other people? If so, is that a good thing or a bad thing? Or are they more wary about exercising their constitutionally protected right to free speech because of self interest? If so, is that a good thing or a bad thing? I really don't know. I'd have to spend a good deal of time talking with a good number of Americans in a diverse number of locations and employment situations to even begin to develop an understanding.
jgowdy 6y ago
I have an anonymous Twitter account so that my true opinions don’t get me fired. This is the fucked up world we live in.
- aaron695 6y ago
  I 120% oppose cancle culture. So much I'd not report someone for a serious crime who should get fired. Because fk cancel culture. But the reality is you should be fired for current Twitter posts while in your current job. It's a publishing platform. You are running another company. If that company contradicts your current one that's a conflict of interest.
- rbecker 6y ago
  > an anonymous Twitter account Anonymity is also under attack on most major platforms. Twitter and Facebook now both require phone numbers I believe.
  - loteck 6y ago
    Why do you believe that?
    - rbecker 6y ago
      Because that is the experience people have shared online: https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/8e5m73/twitter_is_forcing_me_to_add_my_phone_number_how/ https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/8e5m73/twitter_is_... https://www.facebook.com/help/community/question/?id=278494835901458 https://www.facebook.com/help/community/question/?id=2784948... To make matters worse, Twitter and Facebook are not up-front about this requirement. They will let you create an account, and then lock you out or suspend you until they get a phone number.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  Anonymity so your opinions don't get you fired isn't new to the internet. "On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog" is an old saying indicating how divorcing people's online persona from their real life persona was supposed to create an opportunity for meritocracy to grow. It didn't really work out in practice precisely, but it was a good idea.
redis_mlc 6y ago
Wow, an HN post about suppressing dissenting opinions ... Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. There's more brigading on HN than during the 1908 San Francisco earthquake.
llimos 6y ago
> 50% of strong liberals support firing Trump donors That is by definition not very "liberal". Perhaps it should say "progressive" or good old-fashioned "left-wing"
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  The man jokes openly about disregarding the American Constitution regarding presidents serving at most two terms, and it doesn't sound like a joke. So, yes, at this point openly donating to him is donating against traditional America. I can see why people wouldn't be accepting of that.
  - ConceptJunkie 6y ago
    As opposed to the President who said he wanted to fundamentally transform the United States?
    - shadowgovt 6y ago
      You'll have to clarify what you mean; If you're speaking about Obama, I cannot remember a time that he suggested the US just toss one of the amendments out the window.
cbanek 6y ago
And 77% of conservative and strong conservatives don't want to share their views because they feel that they will offend someone. (from the article) Is that because those views are hard to say, argue, or back up with fact? If you think your views offend a lot of people, doesn't that mean you should maybe examine why you have those views, or why those views offend others? But it doesn't seem like that's happening, people are just shutting down and would rather not even talk, unless its to their echo chamber. In general I think this is a bad thing, as it's a whole new level of denial in that people don't even want to argue about things anymore. Breakdowns in communications never bode well for relationships, and I don't think this is any different.
- rbecker 6y ago
  > If you think your views offend a lot of people, doesn't that mean you should maybe examine why you have those views Why do you assume they haven't examined those views, and decided to keep them? Especially since it's popular views that are easier to hold without examination, as they by definition get challenged less.
- dpc_pw 6y ago
  Here's a story for you of someone who's opinion offended a lot of people. https://www.businessinsider.com/the-lone-german-man-who-refused-to-give-hitler-the-nazi-salute-2015-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/the-lone-german-man-who-refu... Maybe he should have "examine why he have those views, or why those views offend others?"
  - cbanek 6y ago
    I think that's fascinating! Very interesting, thanks! And yeah, he should have, and probably did. And is braver than I would probably be in the same situation. I'm not saying anyone's beliefs are wrong at all. I have many beliefs that probably offend others and I don't want to talk about. Many of these fall into a "to each their own." But they aren't political, and I'm certainly not trying to influence law or policy or push them on others. For political views, when you are talking about law and affecting everyone, I think it's important to talk about these. In general for me, examining my beliefs I've always considered a very positive activity. Sometimes it strengthens them, or makes me question. Having people question my beliefs makes me think. Either way I feel stronger by the end of it, even if there is some discomfort in the middle. I think it's beliefs that we aren't willing to think about or question that scare me the most personally.
nicbou 6y ago
I am part of this 62%. I share fewer and fewer opinions. It's not that they are controversial, but that doing so is pointless and tedious. I love a good debate, but they are fewer and further between.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  It is useless to have a conversation with those who will not listen. It is useless to debate those who cannot change their mind. Fewer people, on both sides, are willing to listen, think, and fairly consider a viewpoint that doesn't match their own. As you say, trying to talk about stuff is (far too often) pointless and tedious.
- tootahe45 6y ago
  Even on anonymous forums i've stopped sharing them for this reason, as well as the fact that at a quite small amount of negative karma your account gets shadow banned (Reddit). +It gets tedious on the 7th account created.
wolco2 6y ago
We made a mistake. We started using our real names online. We can change this.
- ThrowawayR2 6y ago
  The answer is simpler than that: make political affiliation a protected class. California, New York, and D.C. already have such laws; see https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-employers-discriminate-based-on-political-beliefs-or-affiliation.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-employers-discri... Extend these laws nationwide and cancel culture can be nipped in the bud.
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    Honestly, that's a terrible idea. You want society to have the resources to pull up Nazis by the grassroots. Otherwise, they can readily leverage personal power into political power.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- tootahe45 6y ago
  And the remaining 'anonymous' sites like Reddit will shadow ban you at -10 karma or so, so it's completely pointless posting anything controversial.
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    I believe that's working is intended. Reddit doesn't particularly want controversial opinions, at least, not controversial enough for most people to signal they hate them. Because that generates a clear signal to Reddit that most people hate that content, and people who hate the content don't come back. As with face-to-face human interaction, the trick is to start by reading the room.
Yc4win 6y ago
You may not want to hear it, but it involves manning the hell up and just whip it out. Your political views. You cannot hide them forever. In real life I have no problem letting people know exactly how I feel. And if you don't know how I feel about something feel free to ask.
Fjolsvith 6y ago
Cato discovered the silent majority.
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  Cato himself was not very silent. Between he and Corculum, the senate was probably wishing Grice would have been earlier born. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthago_delenda_est#Historical_background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthago_delenda_est#Historica...
greenduck 6y ago
Does anybody have information on how this has historically changed? Think about what the world was like 50/60 years ago and what it would be like if we had a global notice board where people post their views under their real names. Back then, I would have been fired without a second thought if my employer found out that I'm gay. Not even for my political views, just for being gay. There's no way I could express my politics under my real name in a public setting. What about the 50s? You'd be accused of being a commy if you weren't in with the prevailing political ideals. Think about how the hippies, feminists, or abolitionists were treated? Would they be OK publishing their opinions under their real name without fear of professional retribution? I have to imagine that we've gotten better and that it's really our assumptions about what is acceptable to announce publicly under our own names that have shifted. Alternatively, I wonder if these are the pains of a group of people who were used to speaking up about their brand of politics in public without being challenged because those were the popular opinions of the time. Now, their ideas have fallen out of favor and they wonder why people oppose them online and consider that to be oppression.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  Indeed. Practically, the difference appears to be the existence of that global notice board, and the fact that opposed viewpoints could live in the same ecosystem by simple lack of interaction with each other. But if you share an opinion on Twitter, it's visible to everyone and everyone can comment. This is, in fact, why I don't have a Twitter account. It does not appear to me that that model is actually beneficial to society.

60 points by Reedx 6y ago

12xo 6y ago

This. We created an unrealistic climate where politics is personal and not to be discussed. Its anything but personal and it should be discussed at length whenever possible where ever possible. The worst thing we as a society can do, is continue this idea that one should not discuss one's ideals. That's why we have so many ignorant people who find comfort in silos. They have never developed the skills necessary to think past their beliefs. BTW: that's what a liberal education is all about. Challenging your ideals and pushing your intellectual limits. And that's a great thing for people and for humanity. Insularity breeds crazy. Always.

ilaksh 6y ago
I mean, when I say what I really think my comments get buried. Or just ignored.
- dkdk8283 6y ago
  I get called a nazi. I’m half Jewish. Incredibly insensitive of many people equating words with death.
  - lalaland1125 6y ago
    I mean, just going by your prior comment history ... > I prefer beautiful women to hand out beverages and snacks on my flight; something that sadly appears to be a dying trend.
    - ghufran_syed 6y ago
      Because nazis were noticably different in the kind of people they had handing out beverages on their planes?
      - esyir 6y ago
        OP's point gets confirmed really fast even here, doesn't it.
    - SamPatt 6y ago
      How is that comment relevant to him being called a Nazi?
    - dang 6y ago
      Please don't bring in people's history as ammunition in an argument. That's a trope of the online shaming/callout culture, and the systemic effects are really horrible. We want to avoid those outcomes here. https://hn.algolia.com/?query=online%20shaming%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment&dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true https://hn.algolia.com/?query=online%20shaming%20by%3Adang&s... Also, HN threads are supposed to be conversations, and it's better conversation to respond to what someone is saying now.
      - shadowgovt 6y ago
        Open question: In what ways are the systemic effects of online shaming/call-out culture horrible?
        dang 6y ago
        It's a good question. Sadly, I can't answer it properly because there isn't time to think properly. Briefly though: it normalizes aggression as the default mode toward people who have some point of difference from oneself.
  - fearfulofview4 6y ago
    The two are not mutually incompatible.
shadowgovt 6y ago
It's more that we created a climate where academic discussion, devil's advocacy, and outright anti-human political stances are no longer tolerated in the public sphere without comment and ridicule, because we watched how they are both used to derail progress on important topics and how they provide fascists, nationalists, and racial supremacists and opportunity to find each other and organize. I perceive the Wild West that the internet started as to be in a phase of cooling and public consumption, where that cooling is including cracking and bifurcation. Sections of society are not finding common ground and likely will not find common ground in my lifetime, but the systems we have built are tuned towards global broadcast bidirectional communication right now, not quiet conversation. It will be interesting to me to see how that changes.
- 12xo 6y ago
  People find a lot of comfort with the validation of their own ideas from others. And since that comfort translates into community, they seek out others of similar feather. I am afraid that this behavior paired with the "personalized" algorithms are a big part of the problem. Instead of pushing people to facts and figures, new ideas and uncomfortable positions, the systems are instead designed to do the opposite. Hide those things in order to hold attention. Remember: Attention is the currency of media. Pair the online phenomenon with the false equivalencies created by right-wing media. That "their ignorance is the same as your knowledge", and you create our current political and social environment ripe for exploit. We now have a whole lot of people who think they're right because they find others who also think they are right.

curation 6y ago

"the contemporary era is, undeniably, one of separation, hate movements, hostility, and, above all, struggle against an enemy. Consequently, liberal democracies - already considerably leached by the forces of capital, technology, and militarism - are now being sucked into a colossal process of inversion." - Necropolitics pg 42.

hayd 6y ago

Now if only the other 38% would shut the hell up as well.

wombatmobile 6y ago

The Cato Institute is an American libertarian think tank headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded as the Charles Koch Foundation in 1974 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries. -- Wikipedia

finnthehuman 6y ago
Please just say whatever it is that you're trying to imply.
- wombatmobile 6y ago
  What makes you sure I'm trying to imply something? I've provided context by identifying the interests behind Cato Institute, which is the organisation that conducted the poll and wrote the article. Have you inferred something from what I wrote? If so, would you like to say what that is?
  - bananabiscuit 6y ago
    I’m also curious what the point of your comment was. Can you please stop being so coy and just tell us!
    - wombatmobile 6y ago
      The only comment I have at this point is that the survey report doesn't help me to know what to expect if I were to visit a large number of American workplaces. The terms are too vague, and the methodology too opaque. What is "the political climate"? How are people supposed to measure it? Do people in each of the 2,000 workplaces that supplied respondents understand the same thing of this term, or something different? What does "liberal" mean? Economically liberal? Socially liberal? Sexually liberal? Intellectually liberal? Measured how? Same for "conservative". Even if the categories are self-selected, unless those terms are defined, how do we know what they mean? Is someone who believes the marginal rate of tax should be lower for wage income than for investment income and sex should only occur for procreation within a marriage whilst one participant is blindfolded and opiated, conservative, or liberal, and how staunchly so? For this question: "Are you worried about losing your job or missing out on job opportunities if your political opinions became known?" a higher number of "Conservative" respondents indicated worry than "Very conservative" respondents. What are we to make of that? Could it have something to do with whether conservative respondents are employed in conservative workplaces or liberal workplaces? The data doesn't give us any insight. What does the survey methodology tell us? "The Cato Institute Summer 2020 National Survey was conducted by the Cato Institute in collaboration with YouGov who fielded the survey. YouGov interviewed 2,108 American adults from July 1-6, 2020 who were then matched into a nationally representative sample of 2,000 Americans aged 18 and older. The margin of error is +/- 2.36 percentage points. This does not include other sources of non-sampling error, such as selection bias in panel participation or response to a particular survey. " Without any insight into the selection method, or the selection bias, the survey could mean anything. Or nothing with respect to the actual America that comprises 350 million people. But consider the opening claim of the article text: "A new Cato Institute/ YouGov national survey of 2,000 Americans finds that 62% of Americans say the political climate these days prevents them from saying things they believe because others might find them offensive. This is up from 2017 when 58% agreed with this statement." The survey did not find what "62% of Americans believe". It only found what 62% of 2,000 survey respondents answered in response to particular questions. There is a difference. We just have no way of knowing what that difference is. The reported change between 2017 and 2020, of 4 percentage points, is less than the cumulative margin of error of +/- 2.36 percentage points each for the two polls. So what is the new survey telling us? Are Americans more sensitive about offending other people? If so, is that a good thing or a bad thing? Or are they more wary about exercising their constitutionally protected right to free speech because of self interest? If so, is that a good thing or a bad thing? I really don't know. I'd have to spend a good deal of time talking with a good number of Americans in a diverse number of locations and employment situations to even begin to develop an understanding.

jgowdy 6y ago

I have an anonymous Twitter account so that my true opinions don’t get me fired. This is the fucked up world we live in.

aaron695 6y ago
I 120% oppose cancle culture. So much I'd not report someone for a serious crime who should get fired. Because fk cancel culture. But the reality is you should be fired for current Twitter posts while in your current job. It's a publishing platform. You are running another company. If that company contradicts your current one that's a conflict of interest.
rbecker 6y ago
> an anonymous Twitter account Anonymity is also under attack on most major platforms. Twitter and Facebook now both require phone numbers I believe.
- loteck 6y ago
  Why do you believe that?
  - rbecker 6y ago
    Because that is the experience people have shared online: https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/8e5m73/twitter_is_forcing_me_to_add_my_phone_number_how/ https://www.reddit.com/r/privacy/comments/8e5m73/twitter_is_... https://www.facebook.com/help/community/question/?id=278494835901458 https://www.facebook.com/help/community/question/?id=2784948... To make matters worse, Twitter and Facebook are not up-front about this requirement. They will let you create an account, and then lock you out or suspend you until they get a phone number.
shadowgovt 6y ago
Anonymity so your opinions don't get you fired isn't new to the internet. "On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog" is an old saying indicating how divorcing people's online persona from their real life persona was supposed to create an opportunity for meritocracy to grow. It didn't really work out in practice precisely, but it was a good idea.

redis_mlc 6y ago

Wow, an HN post about suppressing dissenting opinions ... Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. There's more brigading on HN than during the 1908 San Francisco earthquake.

llimos 6y ago

> 50% of strong liberals support firing Trump donors That is by definition not very "liberal". Perhaps it should say "progressive" or good old-fashioned "left-wing"

shadowgovt 6y ago
The man jokes openly about disregarding the American Constitution regarding presidents serving at most two terms, and it doesn't sound like a joke. So, yes, at this point openly donating to him is donating against traditional America. I can see why people wouldn't be accepting of that.
- ConceptJunkie 6y ago
  As opposed to the President who said he wanted to fundamentally transform the United States?
  - shadowgovt 6y ago
    You'll have to clarify what you mean; If you're speaking about Obama, I cannot remember a time that he suggested the US just toss one of the amendments out the window.

cbanek 6y ago

And 77% of conservative and strong conservatives don't want to share their views because they feel that they will offend someone. (from the article) Is that because those views are hard to say, argue, or back up with fact? If you think your views offend a lot of people, doesn't that mean you should maybe examine why you have those views, or why those views offend others? But it doesn't seem like that's happening, people are just shutting down and would rather not even talk, unless its to their echo chamber. In general I think this is a bad thing, as it's a whole new level of denial in that people don't even want to argue about things anymore. Breakdowns in communications never bode well for relationships, and I don't think this is any different.

rbecker 6y ago
> If you think your views offend a lot of people, doesn't that mean you should maybe examine why you have those views Why do you assume they haven't examined those views, and decided to keep them? Especially since it's popular views that are easier to hold without examination, as they by definition get challenged less.
dpc_pw 6y ago
Here's a story for you of someone who's opinion offended a lot of people. https://www.businessinsider.com/the-lone-german-man-who-refused-to-give-hitler-the-nazi-salute-2015-6 https://www.businessinsider.com/the-lone-german-man-who-refu... Maybe he should have "examine why he have those views, or why those views offend others?"
- cbanek 6y ago
  I think that's fascinating! Very interesting, thanks! And yeah, he should have, and probably did. And is braver than I would probably be in the same situation. I'm not saying anyone's beliefs are wrong at all. I have many beliefs that probably offend others and I don't want to talk about. Many of these fall into a "to each their own." But they aren't political, and I'm certainly not trying to influence law or policy or push them on others. For political views, when you are talking about law and affecting everyone, I think it's important to talk about these. In general for me, examining my beliefs I've always considered a very positive activity. Sometimes it strengthens them, or makes me question. Having people question my beliefs makes me think. Either way I feel stronger by the end of it, even if there is some discomfort in the middle. I think it's beliefs that we aren't willing to think about or question that scare me the most personally.

nicbou 6y ago

I am part of this 62%. I share fewer and fewer opinions. It's not that they are controversial, but that doing so is pointless and tedious. I love a good debate, but they are fewer and further between.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
It is useless to have a conversation with those who will not listen. It is useless to debate those who cannot change their mind. Fewer people, on both sides, are willing to listen, think, and fairly consider a viewpoint that doesn't match their own. As you say, trying to talk about stuff is (far too often) pointless and tedious.
tootahe45 6y ago
Even on anonymous forums i've stopped sharing them for this reason, as well as the fact that at a quite small amount of negative karma your account gets shadow banned (Reddit). +It gets tedious on the 7th account created.

wolco2 6y ago

We made a mistake. We started using our real names online. We can change this.

ThrowawayR2 6y ago
The answer is simpler than that: make political affiliation a protected class. California, New York, and D.C. already have such laws; see https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-employers-discriminate-based-on-political-beliefs-or-affiliation.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-employers-discri... Extend these laws nationwide and cancel culture can be nipped in the bud.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  Honestly, that's a terrible idea. You want society to have the resources to pull up Nazis by the grassroots. Otherwise, they can readily leverage personal power into political power.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
tootahe45 6y ago
And the remaining 'anonymous' sites like Reddit will shadow ban you at -10 karma or so, so it's completely pointless posting anything controversial.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  I believe that's working is intended. Reddit doesn't particularly want controversial opinions, at least, not controversial enough for most people to signal they hate them. Because that generates a clear signal to Reddit that most people hate that content, and people who hate the content don't come back. As with face-to-face human interaction, the trick is to start by reading the room.

Yc4win 6y ago

You may not want to hear it, but it involves manning the hell up and just whip it out. Your political views. You cannot hide them forever. In real life I have no problem letting people know exactly how I feel. And if you don't know how I feel about something feel free to ask.

Fjolsvith 6y ago

Cato discovered the silent majority.

082349872349872 6y ago
Cato himself was not very silent. Between he and Corculum, the senate was probably wishing Grice would have been earlier born. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthago_delenda_est#Historical_background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carthago_delenda_est#Historica...

greenduck 6y ago

Does anybody have information on how this has historically changed? Think about what the world was like 50/60 years ago and what it would be like if we had a global notice board where people post their views under their real names. Back then, I would have been fired without a second thought if my employer found out that I'm gay. Not even for my political views, just for being gay. There's no way I could express my politics under my real name in a public setting. What about the 50s? You'd be accused of being a commy if you weren't in with the prevailing political ideals. Think about how the hippies, feminists, or abolitionists were treated? Would they be OK publishing their opinions under their real name without fear of professional retribution? I have to imagine that we've gotten better and that it's really our assumptions about what is acceptable to announce publicly under our own names that have shifted. Alternatively, I wonder if these are the pains of a group of people who were used to speaking up about their brand of politics in public without being challenged because those were the popular opinions of the time. Now, their ideas have fallen out of favor and they wonder why people oppose them online and consider that to be oppression.

shadowgovt 6y ago
Indeed. Practically, the difference appears to be the existence of that global notice board, and the fact that opposed viewpoints could live in the same ecosystem by simple lack of interaction with each other. But if you share an opinion on Twitter, it's visible to everyone and everyone can comment. This is, in fact, why I don't have a Twitter account. It does not appear to me that that model is actually beneficial to society.