18 ms·

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

138 points by akvadrako 6y ago

ColanR 6y ago
And this is why it's so important to maintain basic civility to everyone, regardless of political views.
- viraptor 6y ago
  It's a nice ideal, but once the views become too extreme, it's not practical. Not many people will maintain basic civility towards a person telling them they don't deserve basic rights for example.
  - cblconfederate 6y ago
    .
    - viraptor 6y ago
      "engaged with people and the culture" is a bit revisionist considering the number of conflicts with politicians and law enforcement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_Inn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_Inn for example? (Example chosen at random, there's tons of them)
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - claudeganon 6y ago
      Hardly. Go read about Stonewall and the ACTUP movement.
  - mdifrgechd 6y ago
    I dont think that's quite fair, basic civility would mean not immediately trying to frame something you disagree with as denying basic rights, and trying to have a more practical discussion about the issues.
    - viraptor 6y ago
      I'm not referring to framing something ambiguous. I mean for example people openly discussing final solution to Jew problem. Are you suggesting basic civility and discussion about the issue with them?
      - mc32 6y ago
        That's disingenuous. That is an unusual extreme view held by neo-nazis AND extreme leftists (nation of islam types). We're talking about people not feeling comfortable having a debate over abortion (it's a third rail on either side to try and establish a time when a foetus becomes a recognized being). This is something we should be curious to establish a benchmark for. Both sides fear that if we establish a number of days at which then we can't have abortions after and the other side fears we can have abortions before)
        viraptor 6y ago
        I literally qualified my post with "once the views become too extreme". It's exactly what this thread is about. (I agree with your position on non-extreme views enough)
      - matz1 6y ago
        Yes including that issue. One person extreme view is just another person normal view, its subjective.
      - koheripbal 6y ago
        Are you suggesting that you are not able to reject those ideas if you hear them? Or are you suggesting that I cannot? I am an adult. You don't need to protect me from hate-speech.
  - zo1 6y ago
    See calling some things "basic rights" is already a point of contention and a loaded way of framing this, as if people are evil and wanting to not give other people something fundamental, essential for life, and "basic" that's been already decided. It's not decided, and a lot of what we've started calling "rights" these days aren't all that basic or universally agreed. The way you've phrased it means that it's perfectly reasonable to be uncivil (violent) towards others. That's a breakdown of communication and has effectively "othered" the individuals/groups based on their disagreement with your framing of the topic.
    - yxhuvud 6y ago
      > The way you've phrased it means that it's perfectly reasonable to be uncivil (violent) towards others. It is, given the right situation. It is not as if the civil rights movement of the 60s got the very real improvements it did get by accepting being treated as crap. Rather, it got rather violent at times. What you suggest would make certain no real improvement could ever happen. Which make sense if you belong to the people that has a good situation in the current status quo, but it absolutely sucks for the people that doesn't. Quite often to change the status quo to the better you first need to make it unpalatable enough to the people that is favored by it.
  - knorker 6y ago
    You call it "not practical", I call the alternative "not effective". Case in point: In Sweden any politician, and mainstream society in general, who even hinted at reducing immigration has been called a heartless racist for the last 30 years, completely shutting down debate. The effect of this was predictable (indeed I've been saying it for about two decades): MORE people become anti-immigrant. (the Sweden Democrats are probably the biggest party now, if there'd be an election today) When you're told by the press and politicians that even raising a topic makes you racist and you should be cancelled, you're not exactly going to be won over. It's so sad to see from the sidelines. Why has the left shifted so much to shutting down all debate that isn't 100% in agreement with the party line? It's not that I disagree with them on the issues, it's that it's sad that they're not seeing how it's actively hurting their stated goals. If Sweden is any predictor, then this is going to get much worse (or, if you're on the right, it'll get much better). Every time someone who said "biological men should not be allowed to compete in sports with biological women" is called Hitler, that's one more person lost to your whole argument, and someone who says that Trump is an OK compromise, and who'll think "if that's your choice argument then you're too crazy to be listened to on abortion, too". tl;dr: If you're choosing between "practical" and "effective", choose "effective". But also see history for how I think when you say "practical", you actually mean "low effort".
    - TMWNN 6y ago
      >The effect of this was predictable (indeed I've been saying it for about two decades): MORE people become anti-immigrant. (the Sweden Democrats are probably the biggest party now, if there'd be an election today) https://pbfcomics.com/comics/deeply-held-beliefs/ https://pbfcomics.com/comics/deeply-held-beliefs/
  - fareesh 6y ago
    A high profile executive working for a corporation in Iran will be fired and possibly arrested if they start talking about the government's stance on women's rights. Likewise in the USA if some executive talks about babies' rights they'll probably be fired and some smear campaign will be launched against them. Likewise in China vocal criticism of the CCP will probably lead to bad consequences. I would encourage Americans to reject this type of culture and embrace freedom of speech and diversity of views. Reduce the number of taboo topics rather than increasing them. This modern blasphemy culture is spreading in many western countries. Reject it before it's too late. Conversations are good. It is how society moves forward. No good ever comes from silencing conversations.
    - koheripbal 6y ago
      I agree. At the end of the day, who are we protecting when we silence hate speech? Are we suggesting that we ourselves cannot handle hearing and rejecting the speech, or are we suggesting that other adults should not even hear hate speech because they might be influenced? Either of those is a profound infantilization of the public. I am capable of hearing hate speech and rejecting it. I trust most other mature adults can do the same. I reject the notion that anyone needs to protect me from hate speech.
      - pas 6y ago
        Umm, have you seen the public recently? If you don't need protection, great! But hate speech emboldens bigots. It has a chilling effect.
        koheripbal 6y ago
        If it emboldens them to commit an illegal act, arrest them. If "emboldens" just means that they are speaking in a venue you frequent, then that isn't a problem. > "It has a chilling effect." The irony is that you are using a term that is actually a consequence of the actions you propose.
        6y ago
  - II2II 6y ago
    A couple of points to consider: Firm opposition does not imply that civility has to be dropped. In some cases it may even be counter productive since it ends up entrenching attitudes and positions. We also need to be aware of how our own attitudes contribute to our own perceptions. It is not much of a leap to believe that we will be fired for our political views if we think that others should be fired for their political views, even if those beliefs and thoughts do not reflect reality. I am not going to claim that civility must be maintained at any cost, there are certainly historical instances when it could not be. On the other hand, being proactive and civil will likely reap more positive change than the alternative.
  - ben509 6y ago
    > Not many people will maintain basic civility towards a person telling them they don't deserve basic rights for example. And the political left has been gaming that for years now by declaring that every entitlement and vote-buying scheme they've come up with represents a basic human right.
  - brigandish 6y ago
    Put that way it sounds compelling but if we look into what the rights are and the kind of rights (Isiah Berlin's framing of rights as negative or positive) then it becomes more complex. Perhaps you have a specific example of people being told they don't deserve basic rights that's a bit more specific?
  - ColanR 6y ago
    I remember reading the Song of Roland in high school. It's a fairly famous, old Christian epic poem from the 11th century. In it, I remember it depicted a Christian knight and an Islamic paladin with diametically and fundamentally opposed views (this was written in the middle of the Crusades) sitting down and sharing a civilized meal together and having a conversation. This is what a civilized dispute looks like. Later they might have fought each other to the death for their religion, but they were still capable of reason and civility. Note that both Christian and Islamic sides were accusing each other at the time of cruel atrocities - and yet the Christian ideal of tolerance includes the possibility of civility with everyone, regardless of what the sides think of each other.
- Cass 6y ago
  There's plenty of political views so toxic and harmful they don't deserve civility. An easy litmus test: are you advocating harm to a person for merely existing in the world, living with the skin color and sexuality they were born with, or making choices that don't harm anyone else? Then I have no interest in hearing your toxic and hateful opinion and I sure hope you'll be afraid to voice it around me. It's a great thing to have political discussions and to try to see all sides of a topic. Your willingness to see the other side's points should stop at the point where the other side is actively trying harm people for the crime of existing in this world. (See also: antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, racism.)
  - golergka 6y ago
    I would completely stand behind this comment if the word "harm" wasn't completely redefined in the last few years. Just in case: speech, however abusive, or denial of association or services is never "harm". Replying to a deleted comment: I think that white-only service is asshole behavior, just as holocaust denial and other stuff. I fight and would continue to fight it with education, counter-propaganda and civil boycott, but I would fight for those people to have legal right to do it without persecution by government at the same time.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - chromatin 6y ago
      You’re fucked either way mate because “silence is violence”
      - nautilus12 6y ago
        Watch out, pointing out that "silence is violence" is an oxymoron is also violence.
  - arka2147483647 6y ago
    Im not american, But i feel that on the long term the list of ”too wrong to discuss” opinion tends to grow, until you reach the point where civil and peacefull discussion becomes impossible. To me it seems this is the road U.S. is walking on.
- metalliqaz 6y ago
  what if those views aren't civil?
  - matz1 6y ago
    Then you get people who silently support the views.
    - metalliqaz 6y ago
      i'll bet there are still a bunch of people who silently oppose interracial marriage in the US. But... they will be dead soon and their ideas will die with them
      - matz1 6y ago
        A person may die but ideas lives on.
        metalliqaz 6y ago
        not if they keep it to themselves also, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle
        matz1 6y ago
        The successive generation can also be the silent supporter or they can be the braver/smarter supporter who aren't afraid to voice their view.
      - ThrowawayR2 6y ago
        Faulty argument. Did the fight for LGBTQ rights die out when being LGBTQ in the past was something people had to stay in the closet about? No? Then why would anyone think it will work on other viewpoints?
  - koheripbal 6y ago
- atoav 6y ago
  "Do we have to show tolerance to the intolerant?" is not the newest question in the book, and historians will probably tell you that in fact free societies stay free if they draw a clear line what is unaccepted behaviour. Liberty is always a balance act, because if you give bad actors freedom in the name of tolerance they will use it to reduce the freedom of weaker actors within society. If you live in a "survival of the fittest"-type society that might be acceptable, but that might not be a free society anymore because it fails to protect the freedoms of some within it. If you overregulate and control on the other hand, you will also reduce the total freedom within society. This is a balance few nations on earth managed to get right for prolonged periods. In my eyes the US didn't get it right for quite a while. Civility is a part of it, but letting people get away with fascist behaviour in the name of tolerance/free speech will potentially put the US (and therefore the whole world) in a much, much darker place.
  - zalkota 6y ago
    Yes, you are correct the left is full of fascists that are power hungry sour losers.
  - brigandish 6y ago
    > "Do we have to show tolerance to the intolerant?" is not the newest question in the book Lately it seems to be the most misrepresented part of Popper's "paradox of intolerance", where he defines intolerance as those who resort to violence instead of speech, and the would be censors of this age who bring up the paradox - without seeming to have read it - tell us that the intolerant are those we disagree with. "we" being those the would be censors disagree with. > free societies stay free if they draw a clear line what is unaccepted behaviour > if you give bad actors freedom in the name of tolerance they will use it to reduce the freedom of weaker actors within society I agree. There is a clear line, which is crossed the moment someone resorts to violence instead of speech, and it has been drawn clearly in law. The bad actors would be those looking to reduce freedoms such as speech, based on nothing more than disagreement, which as it happens is something fascists (among others) have done when they've had the chance.
    - atoav 6y ago
- zalkota 6y ago
  When one sides is burning down entire cities, it’s hard to be civil.
tsjq 6y ago
That's due to extreme polarization, the destruction of middle ground / moderates.
- thesuperbigfrog 6y ago
  Not destruction of the middle ground, but rather hiding of the middle ground. Moderates do not feel safe to express moderate views for fear of being ostracized and cancelled.
  - 082349872349872 6y ago
    It must be kind of difficult to have representation for moderate views when they only have two political parties.
    - thesuperbigfrog 6y ago
      Exactly. The US needs more mainstream political parties.
      - danjac 6y ago
        That would require a completely different political system. There have always been two mainstream parties, which in non-First Past the Post countries would be coalitions of smaller parties. These coalitions break up and shift alignments over time. This is why the Republican Party of today is not the Republican Party of 1959 or 1855, it's more like the Ship of Theseus that bears only the name of the original ship.
        andromeduck 6y ago
        I think moving to a 3-2-1 voting system instead of FPTP, IRV or Proportional would resolve most of the polarization issues in a few cycles. I think it's the easiest way to force deliberation and moderation at the single district/office level without conceding local representation or complexity for the voter. The key is not having a one dimensional optimal strategies or suboptimal equilibrium that result in plurality rule or tyranny of the majority. I'd modify it to allow a super yes/no with double the value per voter to force people to be a bit more selective. https://electowiki.org/wiki/3-2-1_voting https://electowiki.org/wiki/3-2-1_voting
grenoire 6y ago
America seems to be an interesting country where people silence others' political beliefs, as opposed to the usual military violence, tightly-established hierarchies, and economic oppression...
- fleischhauf 6y ago
  I agree. How crazy is it to think its ok for donations to one of the established parties should have repercussions on your emplyment? Dont people see that the other side could want the same thing then.
  - frob 6y ago
    When one of the parties is run by an open bigot, active financial support of that party says a lot about the donor.
- tremon 6y ago
  America seems to be an interesting country "interesting" in the sense of the Chinese curse phrase "may you live in interesting times", perhaps.
- eutropia 6y ago
  Propaganda is to Democracy as the cudgel and boot is to Autocracy
blamestross 6y ago
Awesome! A sign the Overton Window is moving!
- thesuperbigfrog 6y ago
  More like going underground
brightball 6y ago
Why wouldn’t you be? The way that people react these days is so all over the place that it’s a no win situation unless you’re talking about financial/economic policy.
- cblconfederate 6y ago
  .
  - 082349872349872 6y ago
    Maybe distally, but more proximally I'd first put the blame on the people who have been running over or shooting other people.
    - tremon 6y ago
      Or ostracizing other people.
      - youareostriches 6y ago
        No, sorry. Ostracizing others is absolutely not equivalent to attempted murder.
        mc32 6y ago
        I agree. However, both sides have shot at each other and neither has the moral high ground here.
        tremon 6y ago
        In this discussion, I don't see why they're not equivalent. We're talking about reasons why people hide their political beliefs, not abstract ethics.
        youareostriches 6y ago
TMWNN 6y ago
The final Democracy Institute poll (https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1354506/us-election-2020-donald-trump-win-poll-democracy-institute-joe-biden-swing-states https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1354506/us-election-202...) that came out Saturday predicts a Trump victory contrary to most other polls, because it found that 79% of Trump voters do not tell others that they support him, while only 21% of Biden voters are shy. USC's poll predicts a Biden victory, but when experimental questions are asked to figure out how those polled really feel, it forecasts a Trump win (https://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/3338/experimental-polling-point-to-trump-victory/ https://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/3338/experimental-poll...). For those who are skeptical, put on a "Make America Great Again" hat and walk through downtown Chicago, San Francisco, Ann Arbor, or Cambridge before or after election day 2016 (or 2020). Now, put on a "I'm With Her" or "Biden/Harris 2020" shirt and walk through Provo, Fort Worth, or Pensacola before or after election day. In which scenario are you more like to be yelled at and/or physically attacked?
- Zenst 6y ago
  Well, polls are IMHO not good, betting odds are better I have found, for example the last UK general election the bettering odds had conservatists to win. Yet if you looked at Twitter or Facebook, you would be convinced Labour would win with complete dominance in posts upon those platforms. That day I learned that social media is not representative of the populous at large and only a slanted snapshot and polls are equally not that great. See with polls - people lie, why - many reasons, some tactical, some not bothers and some just to avoid confrontation from easily agitated oppositional types. AS for America - last visit I made was over a decade ago but I learned to avoid political debate with a passion as people don't do debate and more argue you to death. Even then in the office had a chap come in and almost interrogated me upon political views, even worrying was others warned me of that and I dismissed them. You live you learn and I've found that the older people are - the more they are inclined to avoid such debates as they more often than not become toxic.
  - TMWNN 6y ago
    >Yet if you looked at Twitter or Facebook, you would be convinced Labour would win with complete dominance in posts upon those platforms. "Never mistake your Twitter feed for your country" (https://twitter.com/NickCohen4/status/1205273956078563328 https://twitter.com/NickCohen4/status/1205273956078563328)
dnsld 6y ago
we're posting Cato Institute links now?
- flybrand 6y ago
  Good point, YC should ban posts from there.
- Fumtumi 6y ago
  I was not aware of 'Cato' before but its amusing that an Philantropist is a Liberatist. Or if you think about it, of course you need much more Philantropists when you have Liberatism :D
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  TIL "As censor, [Cato] tried to save Rome's ancestral customs and combat "degenerate" Hellenistic influences." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_the_Elder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_the_Elder
  - dredmorbius 6y ago
    Wrong Cato: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato%27s_Letters#Influence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato%27s_Letters#Influence
- morelisp 6y ago
  Cato's leadership struggle in 2012 took it from a strongly-right-leaning but fundamentally intelligent and rational policy organization, to one step above the John Birch Society and a bare GOP stump organization. I don't care one way or another about banning, but yeah, people really should not put any weight into what comes out of it today.
  - morelisp 6y ago
    I'm not complaining about the downvotes but given that my comment contains significant substance about the Cato Institute, I would appreciate more feedback. Are you downvoting because you think the leadership struggle in 2012 didn't affect it, or because you also think the JBS is a serious policy organization?
runawaybottle 6y ago
Young Americans are also more likely than older Americans to support punishing people at work for personal donations to Trump. Forty‐ four percent (44%) of Americans under 30 support firing executives if they donate to Trump. This share declines to 22% among those over 55 years old—a 20‐ point difference. An age gap also exists for Biden donors, but is less pronounced. Twenty‐ seven percent (27%) of Americans under 30 support firing executives who donate to Biden compared to 20% of those over 55—a 7‐ point difference. I think millennials might be quite a case study on bad parenting, because Gen Z are literally turning out to be bad apples. This is all of our faults, we are failing our kids more or less. Reminds me of the recent violence in France “connected” to Islam. Where did you kids learn this stuff? Who is parenting you? What is all this internet and global economy, and social connections via social networks for if this is how narrow minded our new generations are becoming? What is the point of all this exposure if you are literally turning out to be stupid people?
- rtkaratekid 6y ago
  Holy hell, I dislike certain politicians as much as the next guy, but punishing people at work for making donations is absolutely ludicrous. Do you have a link to where you got this data?
  - runawaybottle 6y ago
    It’s in the article.
  - peteretep 6y ago
    It’s from the article O_o
    - rtkaratekid 6y ago
      Gah! I was caught. I’ll read it now.
  - Fumtumi 6y ago
    And its also just a suggestive question.
bob33212 6y ago
Americans have always held a very wide range of political views. Just 16 years ago Bush was running on the idea of adding a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Obviously there were people at that time who thought it was evil to treat gay people like that. And others thought it was sinful to be gay. The only change now is that social media is showing each side the worst content from the other side getting them angry and engaged.
- emmelaich 6y ago
  All major political leaders were against gay marriage at some point. The Clintons, Obama, Biden, etc. As for GWB .... > George W. Bush's Forgotten Gay-Rights History > He defied his party by endorsing civil unions in 2004. (But that same year, he backed a constitutional amendment forbidding same-sex marriage. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/07/george-w-bushs-forgotten-gay-rights-history/277567/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/07/george-...
  - throwaway3699 6y ago
    Was Trump?
    - bob33212 6y ago
      It depends, he hates Rossie O'donnell so for her he is against it. But for his friend Peter Thiel he is in favor of it.
    - brsg 6y ago
      This is a dishonest argument. Trump ran I 2016, when gay marriage was already law. It was explicitly the result of Democrats being elected that legalized gay marriage.
  - skinkestek 6y ago
    > He defied his party by endorsing civil unions in 2004. (But that same year, he backed a constitutional amendment forbidding same-sex marriage. This might look inconsistent bjt I think the logic might have been to separate marriage, the religious thing from the civil union thing that is about tax deductions for couples etc. This strikes me as somewhat pragmatic: The government should have as little to say as possible on who lives with who - beyond not allowing close relatives to marry - while still protecting the religions of people living there. I think the Pope fronted a similar conclusion recently. Luckily I am no politician.
jansan 6y ago
Does this mean thath the polls for this presidential election are even more wrong than they were in 2016?
- mc32 6y ago
  That's a good question and no one really knows the answer, but we will have the answer Nov 4. If your implication is true, I think there is going to have to be a serious re-assessment by the establishment regarding the divergence of their politics vs the populace --and there would be a realization that propaganda only goes so far and coercion is the missing ingredient. If the establishment is right, then obviously they had the right pulse and nothing changes.
  - wernerb 6y ago
    Not american, but I believe it was said that this election you won't see the final results perhaps days/weeks even after election. Due to mail in votes I think?
  - iso1210 6y ago
    > but we will have the answer Nov 4. Things I've learnt in the last 2 months, Americans have real problems counting votes. I'm not talking about disputed votes (hanging chads), I'm talking about real actual undisputable votes. Also seem to be problems with the concept of free and fair voting - people having to queue for hours to vote is a sign of voter suppression, not of a healthy democracy. In the UK, we vote either in person on the day (from 6AM until 10PM), or in advance by post (which has to arrive at the designated location by the time polls close, either by post, or by dropping into a voting station). If a charismatic person in a pub gets everyone to go voting you can get a rush just before the polls close as 300 people turn up, but an hour would be extreme. Postal votes are opened daily in the run up to the election in front of observers from the various parties as they come in, verified, and stored in a sealed box. On the actual day the in person boxes are sealed at 10pm (or slightly later if people are still queueing) and transported to a central counting location. These counting locations tend to count 50,000 at a time, and in my experience 50-100 people do the counting (in front of observers from the parties), the counts start almost straight away, and the first results come in after an hour or so. Most results are in after about 6 hours, and unless there are transport problems (storms preventing votes from islands getting where they need to go) everywhere has declared within about 10 hours. Now the US has more than the 32 million votes cast in the UK's December election, but this method scales easily enough. So why does it take days for votes to be counted?
cwhiz 6y ago
We’re going to fight fascism, and if you don’t agree with us we’ll burn your house down. America in a nutshell.
- Ekaros 6y ago
  Fighting "fascisms" with fascism... I find it entirely bizarre that so large scope of population and media is fine with what is going on...
  - blog_throwaway 6y ago
    Its so bad that US Citizens just dont get political theory just yet. Still a lot to learn. Its laughable that you thinking burning down property is fascism rather than just arson.
  - youareostriches 6y ago
    Fascism is a political strategy involving fear of change and scapegoating. If you’re trying to imply that use of force automatically translates to fascism, then you need to consider situations of community defense against fascists, which ultimately requires force. Self-defense and defending democratic rights is quite different from terroristic violence in the service of subverting democratic and human rights. I reserve the term “violence” to situations described in Hannah Arendt‘s similarly-named essay, in which terroristic violence has historically been used by failing dictators against the legitimate power of the people as a whole.
    - koheripbal 6y ago
      I don't think it's useful to argue semantics. If using violence to combat opposing political speech isn't your definition of fascism, then it's as equally sinister and takes us to an equally dark place. We have seen many examples in the last few years of people feeling so entitled to combat what they consider fascism, that they use violence against anyone they perceive as the enemy. Maybe we don't agree on the definition of words, but this is a bad development.
    - 6y ago
foepys 6y ago
I honestly think that social networks where you connect the whole world were a bad idea. Basing it on ads and thus engagement made it toxic. Political left and right both formed extreme wings that attack moderate opinions for not being extreme enough. The right is often threatening violence while the left is trying to get you fired from your job. We need to get rid of engagement algorithms and actively try to counter echo chambers by injecting moderate content into news feeds.
- TravHatesMe 6y ago
  > Political left and right both formed extreme wings that attack moderate opinions for not being extreme enough Very well said. I hate all extremes of politics. I like asking questions and being critical. What I have noticed is that critical thinking is attacked viciously from both sides. Asking questions that go against your side's "hard fact" is greeted with intense hostility and vitriol. I would imagine that this behavior is encouraged because it teaches people to not ask questions and follow the herd. Forming your own opinions, coming to your own conclusions, asking your own question -- this is all so offensive nowadays. It is sad because often there is real social risk in saying something that might offend the left/right. If you live in a community that heavily leans to one side, you are scared of stating your own opinions because people could shun you. This social punishment could extend to your children -- what parent would want to take that risk?
  - brsg 6y ago
    I agree with this and, for what it's worth, I've found discussions like this are always far more cordial in person versus online - even if you already know the person online. I genuinely blame social media for this "descent into dogmatism". Any time my belief is challenged in an online discussion, I can just retreat into my echo chamber and feel even more confident than before.
  - kls 6y ago
    Not too long ago, maybe 4 months ago I saw an article posted on HN which was along the lines of moderates are more dangerous than the enemy, because they empower the other side. It was a fairly radical piece obviously slanted towards hard-left economic policies. I found the comments to mostly be in agreement and pretty depressing given that I am fairly moderate, I lean a little to the right on economic and personal rights, and well to the left on social issues. This is the way most people when I was a child where. The radicalization has been eye opening to say the least but I am staying in the middle, if both sides of the radicals would rather see me dead (one radical basically inferred, that is what needs to be done with moderates) then so be it.
Fumtumi 6y ago
Sometimes it might just be that people formed opinions for matters which are more complex and need more knowledge and thinking of coming to a proper conclusion. If 62% of Americans think homosexuality is wrong, does that really matter? Do we really wanna ask them that and act on it? We are asking to many people what they think independetly of how much time and effort they spend with a topic or if that topic is not superseeded by something else (like an Amendment). No one is going around and asking people what operating system is better. My personal assumption, and this is now very critical for my inner conflict: I do believe every opinion should matter and i do strongly believe in democracy but this only works when the other requirement is true: People are reading up and educating themselfs on politics. Enough people don't. Enough people in politics don't. They are there because they want something not because they care.
- engineer_22 6y ago
  The founders believed the same thing. Hence the American democracy is formed as a republic, with balance of powers.
factorialboy 6y ago
My company got spammed by Expensify CEOs political views. Some non Americans complained about receiving the irrelevant email. Some Americans were targeting even that. Apparently foreigners have no right to NOT RECEIVE political endorsements that mirrors their political views. Your politics is too toxic. Sorry but it has to be said.
- buro9 6y ago
  And just after I read this on HN I see this shared by a fellow brit asking WTF https://www.thedailybeast.com/biden-camp-cancels-austin-texas-event-after-pro-trump-ambush-on-campaign-bus https://www.thedailybeast.com/biden-camp-cancels-austin-texa... and indeed... it's hard to comprehend of this level of voter and campaign intimidation like this anywhere. When I've read things like this in the past it's been in failed states.
  - mc32 6y ago
    I saw that video. It's not actually clear cut to me who was at fault. The truck was in the right lane, the bus and SUV right behind in the left lane. Bus merged right (into truck's lane immediately in front) SUV could not occupy the space already occupied by the truck as SUV tried following bus. Truck did not yield, SUV tried to wedge in and straddled both lanes. There was subsequent contact but I'm not sure who initiated it. Never the less, you should not drive in two lanes --you should wait till it's safe to merge, it's basic traffic safety to not change lanes till it's safe to do so.
    - wilde 6y ago
      The truck is at fault by being there at all. This is not acceptable behavior. They created the situation with the intent to provoke. It’s classic bullying.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - 6y ago
ykevinator 6y ago
This means that we probably all secretly share a lot of views that tv and parties don't steer us to.
feralimal 6y ago
That's an interesting stat, though its political in nature. I suspect that the disconnect is far wider in scope. Most people are totally perplexed by the disparity between their own reality and what is portrayed in the news. For 3 years we had evidence-free but unrelenting Russia/Trump hate. This seemed insane, but it turns out that was just the warm up act to coronavirus! The reality of what people see around them is sooooo far away from what is portrayed on the MSM. It amazes me that anyone pays any notice to the MSM at. But what it really shows, is that most individuals are not their own authority in their life. They defer to what is the consensus opinion that is blasted at them 24/7 from the MSM, rather than acting according to what they actually experience. Imagine, somehow a person was frozen in time, and seeing how the majority live now - scared of living because someone said something on TV! But that is the power of the media, and why it is such an effective control. The majority disagree with what is portrayed, but feel pressured enough to keep quiet and therefore acquiesce to whatever is being shouted out.
- ghthor 6y ago
  Sorry for the downvotes, but your opinion is pretty much spot on. People dont like hearing truth about the situation.
  - feralimal 6y ago
    Win some, lose some! I cracked a couple of sarcastic 'jokes' in previous threads which got upvoted, so I've got points to burn!
question000 6y ago
Yeah well when you have a president who openly supports the police shooting unarmed people, unarmed people become afraid of saying anything against the president. When you have a president who's openly calling immigrants thieves and rapists, immigrants and their American kin become afraid of saying anything against the president. If you have a president who openly calls your religion "a religion of death" you're going to be afraid. I support firing Trump supporters, of course I do I'm the son of the an immigrant and people like me are being locked up by him for nothing. Why would I ever want to work with someone who openly wants to throw me in jail? Edit: ug I mean identity politics has really been tainting the discussion! Who could be causing this?!
blog_throwaway 6y ago
Is it because most Americans don't actually know Political theory? The 'left' wing of the US is comparable to the moderately centre of the UK (maybe a bit to the right actually). They can't think as one group or groups yet because they are just beginning to actually get a grip of the fundamentals. Adding in, before US folks bite this comment. Please understand that Socialism is not universal healthcare, it is not the right to reliable and inexpensive housing and it is not feeding the children of your country before they starve. These are basic human rights. When you parade around wanting to defend free speech, why not defend these basic human principles? You cant speak if you are unable to due to rent prices going up and not being able to feed your family. Or going to the doctors or university costs you your whole life.
jameskilton 6y ago
Good. Never pass up a chance to keep your mouth shut.
- abnry 6y ago
  Why did you even comment then?
chromatin 6y ago
I would absolutely be denied opportunities for projects, publicity, promotion, and advancement in my field if I were known to have political views that deviated from the norm in my industry, which I will state for the record is hard left. Consequently, I express no personal non-work related opinions not only at work but in fact not even with “friendlies,” as loose lips sink ships. It is a shitty way to live, given how much time one spends at work.
- morelisp 6y ago
  Which industry do you work in? I am looking for a new job and would appreciate something hard-left rather than hard-California, which seems to be the new norm in the worldwide software industry.
  - chromatin 6y ago
    Not being familiar with California, How would you delineate the differences?
    - tupputuppu 6y ago
      I'd be interested as well. I work for a Californian tech company and I would mostly describe it as "hard left". We have mandatory trainings quarterly where we have to do exams where we say "as long as 50% of tech workers aren't female and black, we 've got a discrimination issue." I've got coworkers who've told me over a beer that they work here exactly so they wouldn't have to work with people who have "other values" and they feel its good those sort of people are outed. So in essence, feels like a textbook example of what the article was talking about, with leftists having consider able freedom to talk about politics and everyone else marginalized.
- runawaybottle 6y ago
  So I don’t get it, did we create a situation where you cannot discuss politics at lunch with coworkers?
  - 6y ago
andromeduck 6y ago
The Lincoln report is also worth a look but tl;dr: - everyone agrees that there should be more viewpoint diversity - but most people still support silencing "dangerous opinions" - and far right and far left more likely to support termination for offensive views https://joinlincoln.org/pdfs/lincoln-2019-viewpoint-report.pdf https://joinlincoln.org/pdfs/lincoln-2019-viewpoint-report.p...
another_sock 6y ago
A better question to ask, rather than the one this poll puts forth (why are Americans scared to share their political views), is "why do people feel the need to share their political views at all?" The reason for this is because people do not spend their time wisely. Instead of trying to convince equally powerless people to see reality in some manner which doesn't matter, the logical thing to do is work to increase your locus of control over your surroundings. Politics don't matter, they are downstream from structures and incentives. Whether you like the police, lgbtq+ rights, abortion, equality, etc is completely irrelevant, how those things make you feel is irrelevant, stop wasting time on them and let other people waste their time on trying to validate themselves and their feelings with political games. Do real activities and increase your influence and control over your surroundings, then exert your values over that sphere. Caring about people agreeing with you is the position of the victim and slave.
- kls 6y ago
  I feel like you are a lone voice crying in the night. I tell people this all the time, but they are so trapped in the temporal that they cannot see the bigger picture, consumed by emotional thought that they cannot look past it. If people could just stop looking at how they are enslaved they would see the freedoms that they could enjoy.
cosmodisk 6y ago
I'm not surprised people are afraid. I'm in Europe,so naturally most of my connections on LinkedIn are on this side of the pond too, however there are also some Americans.None of them post anything unusual, however the feed occasionally brings up some batshit crazy stuff from related people. You could expect that kind of stuff on Facebook from some 15 years olds,but not from senior people who have been round the corner more than once. You read it and wonder how on earth you managed to get to where you are now with a thought train like that. It's not that much better here, in England, too. People refuse to tell how they voted publicly, but often reveal it in private of they know they won't be judged. Usually the logic behind the decision makes you question person's ability to comprehend things slightly more complex than a paper bag.
- agumonkey 6y ago
  The sociological aspects of this era are .. sadly fascinating. 2020s material comfort, education systems, insane technological 'tooling' .. and yet we're still a good old mob when too much ambient stress rises. What should we do ? have gatherings to just dissolve tension and make people go back to normal lives without trying to find weird remarks or conspiracies about what's going on ?
  - wasdfff 6y ago
    Mandatory two minutes hate every day
roody15 6y ago
Absolutely. For example I like Trumps stance on H1B Visa reform. I cannot share even this one policy agreement with peers without immediate labeling of bigot, racist, etc. People appear to be so emotionally vested in this election at this point it’s better to stay quiet. IMO.
- happytoexplain 6y ago
  As with most political things, this cuts both ways with increasing polarity. Not just in the obvious way (left/right), but rather for every time I see someone not given the benefit of the doubt when supporting an arguably-not-hateful Trump policy, I also see someone respond to reasonable criticism by assuming a victim mentality, as though any criticism is a personal accusation of racism/sexism/etc.
happytoexplain 6y ago
It's surreal to see how far a lack of self awareness can go, reading all the comments either implying or outright stating, "yes, I agree, and it's the fault of the left/right". Attitudes like that are exactly why I don't share political thoughts in real life.
cosmiccatnap 6y ago
That sounds bad until you think about how many of those are openions are "black people are lesser than white people"

138 points by akvadrako 6y ago

ColanR 6y ago

And this is why it's so important to maintain basic civility to everyone, regardless of political views.

viraptor 6y ago
It's a nice ideal, but once the views become too extreme, it's not practical. Not many people will maintain basic civility towards a person telling them they don't deserve basic rights for example.
- cblconfederate 6y ago
  .
  - viraptor 6y ago
    "engaged with people and the culture" is a bit revisionist considering the number of conflicts with politicians and law enforcement. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_Inn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_Inn for example? (Example chosen at random, there's tons of them)
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - claudeganon 6y ago
    Hardly. Go read about Stonewall and the ACTUP movement.
- mdifrgechd 6y ago
  I dont think that's quite fair, basic civility would mean not immediately trying to frame something you disagree with as denying basic rights, and trying to have a more practical discussion about the issues.
  - viraptor 6y ago
    I'm not referring to framing something ambiguous. I mean for example people openly discussing final solution to Jew problem. Are you suggesting basic civility and discussion about the issue with them?
    - mc32 6y ago
      That's disingenuous. That is an unusual extreme view held by neo-nazis AND extreme leftists (nation of islam types). We're talking about people not feeling comfortable having a debate over abortion (it's a third rail on either side to try and establish a time when a foetus becomes a recognized being). This is something we should be curious to establish a benchmark for. Both sides fear that if we establish a number of days at which then we can't have abortions after and the other side fears we can have abortions before)
      - viraptor 6y ago
        I literally qualified my post with "once the views become too extreme". It's exactly what this thread is about. (I agree with your position on non-extreme views enough)
    - matz1 6y ago
      Yes including that issue. One person extreme view is just another person normal view, its subjective.
    - koheripbal 6y ago
      Are you suggesting that you are not able to reject those ideas if you hear them? Or are you suggesting that I cannot? I am an adult. You don't need to protect me from hate-speech.
- zo1 6y ago
  See calling some things "basic rights" is already a point of contention and a loaded way of framing this, as if people are evil and wanting to not give other people something fundamental, essential for life, and "basic" that's been already decided. It's not decided, and a lot of what we've started calling "rights" these days aren't all that basic or universally agreed. The way you've phrased it means that it's perfectly reasonable to be uncivil (violent) towards others. That's a breakdown of communication and has effectively "othered" the individuals/groups based on their disagreement with your framing of the topic.
  - yxhuvud 6y ago
    > The way you've phrased it means that it's perfectly reasonable to be uncivil (violent) towards others. It is, given the right situation. It is not as if the civil rights movement of the 60s got the very real improvements it did get by accepting being treated as crap. Rather, it got rather violent at times. What you suggest would make certain no real improvement could ever happen. Which make sense if you belong to the people that has a good situation in the current status quo, but it absolutely sucks for the people that doesn't. Quite often to change the status quo to the better you first need to make it unpalatable enough to the people that is favored by it.
- knorker 6y ago
  You call it "not practical", I call the alternative "not effective". Case in point: In Sweden any politician, and mainstream society in general, who even hinted at reducing immigration has been called a heartless racist for the last 30 years, completely shutting down debate. The effect of this was predictable (indeed I've been saying it for about two decades): MORE people become anti-immigrant. (the Sweden Democrats are probably the biggest party now, if there'd be an election today) When you're told by the press and politicians that even raising a topic makes you racist and you should be cancelled, you're not exactly going to be won over. It's so sad to see from the sidelines. Why has the left shifted so much to shutting down all debate that isn't 100% in agreement with the party line? It's not that I disagree with them on the issues, it's that it's sad that they're not seeing how it's actively hurting their stated goals. If Sweden is any predictor, then this is going to get much worse (or, if you're on the right, it'll get much better). Every time someone who said "biological men should not be allowed to compete in sports with biological women" is called Hitler, that's one more person lost to your whole argument, and someone who says that Trump is an OK compromise, and who'll think "if that's your choice argument then you're too crazy to be listened to on abortion, too". tl;dr: If you're choosing between "practical" and "effective", choose "effective". But also see history for how I think when you say "practical", you actually mean "low effort".
  - TMWNN 6y ago
    >The effect of this was predictable (indeed I've been saying it for about two decades): MORE people become anti-immigrant. (the Sweden Democrats are probably the biggest party now, if there'd be an election today) https://pbfcomics.com/comics/deeply-held-beliefs/ https://pbfcomics.com/comics/deeply-held-beliefs/
- fareesh 6y ago
  A high profile executive working for a corporation in Iran will be fired and possibly arrested if they start talking about the government's stance on women's rights. Likewise in the USA if some executive talks about babies' rights they'll probably be fired and some smear campaign will be launched against them. Likewise in China vocal criticism of the CCP will probably lead to bad consequences. I would encourage Americans to reject this type of culture and embrace freedom of speech and diversity of views. Reduce the number of taboo topics rather than increasing them. This modern blasphemy culture is spreading in many western countries. Reject it before it's too late. Conversations are good. It is how society moves forward. No good ever comes from silencing conversations.
  - koheripbal 6y ago
    I agree. At the end of the day, who are we protecting when we silence hate speech? Are we suggesting that we ourselves cannot handle hearing and rejecting the speech, or are we suggesting that other adults should not even hear hate speech because they might be influenced? Either of those is a profound infantilization of the public. I am capable of hearing hate speech and rejecting it. I trust most other mature adults can do the same. I reject the notion that anyone needs to protect me from hate speech.
    - pas 6y ago
      Umm, have you seen the public recently? If you don't need protection, great! But hate speech emboldens bigots. It has a chilling effect.
      - koheripbal 6y ago
        If it emboldens them to commit an illegal act, arrest them. If "emboldens" just means that they are speaking in a venue you frequent, then that isn't a problem. > "It has a chilling effect." The irony is that you are using a term that is actually a consequence of the actions you propose.
        6y ago
- II2II 6y ago
  A couple of points to consider: Firm opposition does not imply that civility has to be dropped. In some cases it may even be counter productive since it ends up entrenching attitudes and positions. We also need to be aware of how our own attitudes contribute to our own perceptions. It is not much of a leap to believe that we will be fired for our political views if we think that others should be fired for their political views, even if those beliefs and thoughts do not reflect reality. I am not going to claim that civility must be maintained at any cost, there are certainly historical instances when it could not be. On the other hand, being proactive and civil will likely reap more positive change than the alternative.
- ben509 6y ago
  > Not many people will maintain basic civility towards a person telling them they don't deserve basic rights for example. And the political left has been gaming that for years now by declaring that every entitlement and vote-buying scheme they've come up with represents a basic human right.
- brigandish 6y ago
  Put that way it sounds compelling but if we look into what the rights are and the kind of rights (Isiah Berlin's framing of rights as negative or positive) then it becomes more complex. Perhaps you have a specific example of people being told they don't deserve basic rights that's a bit more specific?
- ColanR 6y ago
  I remember reading the Song of Roland in high school. It's a fairly famous, old Christian epic poem from the 11th century. In it, I remember it depicted a Christian knight and an Islamic paladin with diametically and fundamentally opposed views (this was written in the middle of the Crusades) sitting down and sharing a civilized meal together and having a conversation. This is what a civilized dispute looks like. Later they might have fought each other to the death for their religion, but they were still capable of reason and civility. Note that both Christian and Islamic sides were accusing each other at the time of cruel atrocities - and yet the Christian ideal of tolerance includes the possibility of civility with everyone, regardless of what the sides think of each other.
Cass 6y ago
There's plenty of political views so toxic and harmful they don't deserve civility. An easy litmus test: are you advocating harm to a person for merely existing in the world, living with the skin color and sexuality they were born with, or making choices that don't harm anyone else? Then I have no interest in hearing your toxic and hateful opinion and I sure hope you'll be afraid to voice it around me. It's a great thing to have political discussions and to try to see all sides of a topic. Your willingness to see the other side's points should stop at the point where the other side is actively trying harm people for the crime of existing in this world. (See also: antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, racism.)
- golergka 6y ago
  I would completely stand behind this comment if the word "harm" wasn't completely redefined in the last few years. Just in case: speech, however abusive, or denial of association or services is never "harm". Replying to a deleted comment: I think that white-only service is asshole behavior, just as holocaust denial and other stuff. I fight and would continue to fight it with education, counter-propaganda and civil boycott, but I would fight for those people to have legal right to do it without persecution by government at the same time.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - chromatin 6y ago
    You’re fucked either way mate because “silence is violence”
    - nautilus12 6y ago
      Watch out, pointing out that "silence is violence" is an oxymoron is also violence.
- arka2147483647 6y ago
  Im not american, But i feel that on the long term the list of ”too wrong to discuss” opinion tends to grow, until you reach the point where civil and peacefull discussion becomes impossible. To me it seems this is the road U.S. is walking on.
metalliqaz 6y ago
what if those views aren't civil?
- matz1 6y ago
  Then you get people who silently support the views.
  - metalliqaz 6y ago
    i'll bet there are still a bunch of people who silently oppose interracial marriage in the US. But... they will be dead soon and their ideas will die with them
    - matz1 6y ago
      A person may die but ideas lives on.
      - metalliqaz 6y ago
        not if they keep it to themselves also, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle
        matz1 6y ago
        The successive generation can also be the silent supporter or they can be the braver/smarter supporter who aren't afraid to voice their view.
    - ThrowawayR2 6y ago
      Faulty argument. Did the fight for LGBTQ rights die out when being LGBTQ in the past was something people had to stay in the closet about? No? Then why would anyone think it will work on other viewpoints?
- koheripbal 6y ago
atoav 6y ago
"Do we have to show tolerance to the intolerant?" is not the newest question in the book, and historians will probably tell you that in fact free societies stay free if they draw a clear line what is unaccepted behaviour. Liberty is always a balance act, because if you give bad actors freedom in the name of tolerance they will use it to reduce the freedom of weaker actors within society. If you live in a "survival of the fittest"-type society that might be acceptable, but that might not be a free society anymore because it fails to protect the freedoms of some within it. If you overregulate and control on the other hand, you will also reduce the total freedom within society. This is a balance few nations on earth managed to get right for prolonged periods. In my eyes the US didn't get it right for quite a while. Civility is a part of it, but letting people get away with fascist behaviour in the name of tolerance/free speech will potentially put the US (and therefore the whole world) in a much, much darker place.
- zalkota 6y ago
  Yes, you are correct the left is full of fascists that are power hungry sour losers.
- brigandish 6y ago
  > "Do we have to show tolerance to the intolerant?" is not the newest question in the book Lately it seems to be the most misrepresented part of Popper's "paradox of intolerance", where he defines intolerance as those who resort to violence instead of speech, and the would be censors of this age who bring up the paradox - without seeming to have read it - tell us that the intolerant are those we disagree with. "we" being those the would be censors disagree with. > free societies stay free if they draw a clear line what is unaccepted behaviour > if you give bad actors freedom in the name of tolerance they will use it to reduce the freedom of weaker actors within society I agree. There is a clear line, which is crossed the moment someone resorts to violence instead of speech, and it has been drawn clearly in law. The bad actors would be those looking to reduce freedoms such as speech, based on nothing more than disagreement, which as it happens is something fascists (among others) have done when they've had the chance.
  - atoav 6y ago
zalkota 6y ago
When one sides is burning down entire cities, it’s hard to be civil.

tsjq 6y ago

That's due to extreme polarization, the destruction of middle ground / moderates.

thesuperbigfrog 6y ago
Not destruction of the middle ground, but rather hiding of the middle ground. Moderates do not feel safe to express moderate views for fear of being ostracized and cancelled.
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  It must be kind of difficult to have representation for moderate views when they only have two political parties.
  - thesuperbigfrog 6y ago
    Exactly. The US needs more mainstream political parties.
    - danjac 6y ago
      That would require a completely different political system. There have always been two mainstream parties, which in non-First Past the Post countries would be coalitions of smaller parties. These coalitions break up and shift alignments over time. This is why the Republican Party of today is not the Republican Party of 1959 or 1855, it's more like the Ship of Theseus that bears only the name of the original ship.
      - andromeduck 6y ago
        I think moving to a 3-2-1 voting system instead of FPTP, IRV or Proportional would resolve most of the polarization issues in a few cycles. I think it's the easiest way to force deliberation and moderation at the single district/office level without conceding local representation or complexity for the voter. The key is not having a one dimensional optimal strategies or suboptimal equilibrium that result in plurality rule or tyranny of the majority. I'd modify it to allow a super yes/no with double the value per voter to force people to be a bit more selective. https://electowiki.org/wiki/3-2-1_voting https://electowiki.org/wiki/3-2-1_voting

grenoire 6y ago

America seems to be an interesting country where people silence others' political beliefs, as opposed to the usual military violence, tightly-established hierarchies, and economic oppression...

fleischhauf 6y ago
I agree. How crazy is it to think its ok for donations to one of the established parties should have repercussions on your emplyment? Dont people see that the other side could want the same thing then.
- frob 6y ago
  When one of the parties is run by an open bigot, active financial support of that party says a lot about the donor.
tremon 6y ago
America seems to be an interesting country "interesting" in the sense of the Chinese curse phrase "may you live in interesting times", perhaps.
eutropia 6y ago
Propaganda is to Democracy as the cudgel and boot is to Autocracy

blamestross 6y ago

Awesome! A sign the Overton Window is moving!

thesuperbigfrog 6y ago
More like going underground

brightball 6y ago

Why wouldn’t you be? The way that people react these days is so all over the place that it’s a no win situation unless you’re talking about financial/economic policy.

cblconfederate 6y ago
.
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  Maybe distally, but more proximally I'd first put the blame on the people who have been running over or shooting other people.
  - tremon 6y ago
    Or ostracizing other people.
    - youareostriches 6y ago
      No, sorry. Ostracizing others is absolutely not equivalent to attempted murder.
      - mc32 6y ago
        I agree. However, both sides have shot at each other and neither has the moral high ground here.
      - tremon 6y ago
        In this discussion, I don't see why they're not equivalent. We're talking about reasons why people hide their political beliefs, not abstract ethics.
        youareostriches 6y ago

TMWNN 6y ago

The final Democracy Institute poll (https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1354506/us-election-2020-donald-trump-win-poll-democracy-institute-joe-biden-swing-states https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1354506/us-election-202...) that came out Saturday predicts a Trump victory contrary to most other polls, because it found that 79% of Trump voters do not tell others that they support him, while only 21% of Biden voters are shy. USC's poll predicts a Biden victory, but when experimental questions are asked to figure out how those polled really feel, it forecasts a Trump win (https://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/3338/experimental-polling-point-to-trump-victory/ https://dornsife.usc.edu/news/stories/3338/experimental-poll...). For those who are skeptical, put on a "Make America Great Again" hat and walk through downtown Chicago, San Francisco, Ann Arbor, or Cambridge before or after election day 2016 (or 2020). Now, put on a "I'm With Her" or "Biden/Harris 2020" shirt and walk through Provo, Fort Worth, or Pensacola before or after election day. In which scenario are you more like to be yelled at and/or physically attacked?

Zenst 6y ago
Well, polls are IMHO not good, betting odds are better I have found, for example the last UK general election the bettering odds had conservatists to win. Yet if you looked at Twitter or Facebook, you would be convinced Labour would win with complete dominance in posts upon those platforms. That day I learned that social media is not representative of the populous at large and only a slanted snapshot and polls are equally not that great. See with polls - people lie, why - many reasons, some tactical, some not bothers and some just to avoid confrontation from easily agitated oppositional types. AS for America - last visit I made was over a decade ago but I learned to avoid political debate with a passion as people don't do debate and more argue you to death. Even then in the office had a chap come in and almost interrogated me upon political views, even worrying was others warned me of that and I dismissed them. You live you learn and I've found that the older people are - the more they are inclined to avoid such debates as they more often than not become toxic.
- TMWNN 6y ago
  >Yet if you looked at Twitter or Facebook, you would be convinced Labour would win with complete dominance in posts upon those platforms. "Never mistake your Twitter feed for your country" (https://twitter.com/NickCohen4/status/1205273956078563328 https://twitter.com/NickCohen4/status/1205273956078563328)

dnsld 6y ago

we're posting Cato Institute links now?

flybrand 6y ago
Good point, YC should ban posts from there.
Fumtumi 6y ago
I was not aware of 'Cato' before but its amusing that an Philantropist is a Liberatist. Or if you think about it, of course you need much more Philantropists when you have Liberatism :D
082349872349872 6y ago
TIL "As censor, [Cato] tried to save Rome's ancestral customs and combat "degenerate" Hellenistic influences." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_the_Elder https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato_the_Elder
- dredmorbius 6y ago
  Wrong Cato: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato%27s_Letters#Influence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cato%27s_Letters#Influence
morelisp 6y ago
Cato's leadership struggle in 2012 took it from a strongly-right-leaning but fundamentally intelligent and rational policy organization, to one step above the John Birch Society and a bare GOP stump organization. I don't care one way or another about banning, but yeah, people really should not put any weight into what comes out of it today.
- morelisp 6y ago
  I'm not complaining about the downvotes but given that my comment contains significant substance about the Cato Institute, I would appreciate more feedback. Are you downvoting because you think the leadership struggle in 2012 didn't affect it, or because you also think the JBS is a serious policy organization?

runawaybottle 6y ago

Young Americans are also more likely than older Americans to support punishing people at work for personal donations to Trump. Forty‐ four percent (44%) of Americans under 30 support firing executives if they donate to Trump. This share declines to 22% among those over 55 years old—a 20‐ point difference. An age gap also exists for Biden donors, but is less pronounced. Twenty‐ seven percent (27%) of Americans under 30 support firing executives who donate to Biden compared to 20% of those over 55—a 7‐ point difference. I think millennials might be quite a case study on bad parenting, because Gen Z are literally turning out to be bad apples. This is all of our faults, we are failing our kids more or less. Reminds me of the recent violence in France “connected” to Islam. Where did you kids learn this stuff? Who is parenting you? What is all this internet and global economy, and social connections via social networks for if this is how narrow minded our new generations are becoming? What is the point of all this exposure if you are literally turning out to be stupid people?

rtkaratekid 6y ago
Holy hell, I dislike certain politicians as much as the next guy, but punishing people at work for making donations is absolutely ludicrous. Do you have a link to where you got this data?
- runawaybottle 6y ago
  It’s in the article.
- peteretep 6y ago
  It’s from the article O_o
  - rtkaratekid 6y ago
    Gah! I was caught. I’ll read it now.
- Fumtumi 6y ago
  And its also just a suggestive question.

bob33212 6y ago

Americans have always held a very wide range of political views. Just 16 years ago Bush was running on the idea of adding a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Obviously there were people at that time who thought it was evil to treat gay people like that. And others thought it was sinful to be gay. The only change now is that social media is showing each side the worst content from the other side getting them angry and engaged.

emmelaich 6y ago
All major political leaders were against gay marriage at some point. The Clintons, Obama, Biden, etc. As for GWB .... > George W. Bush's Forgotten Gay-Rights History > He defied his party by endorsing civil unions in 2004. (But that same year, he backed a constitutional amendment forbidding same-sex marriage. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/07/george-w-bushs-forgotten-gay-rights-history/277567/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/07/george-...
- throwaway3699 6y ago
  Was Trump?
  - bob33212 6y ago
    It depends, he hates Rossie O'donnell so for her he is against it. But for his friend Peter Thiel he is in favor of it.
  - brsg 6y ago
    This is a dishonest argument. Trump ran I 2016, when gay marriage was already law. It was explicitly the result of Democrats being elected that legalized gay marriage.
- skinkestek 6y ago
  > He defied his party by endorsing civil unions in 2004. (But that same year, he backed a constitutional amendment forbidding same-sex marriage. This might look inconsistent bjt I think the logic might have been to separate marriage, the religious thing from the civil union thing that is about tax deductions for couples etc. This strikes me as somewhat pragmatic: The government should have as little to say as possible on who lives with who - beyond not allowing close relatives to marry - while still protecting the religions of people living there. I think the Pope fronted a similar conclusion recently. Luckily I am no politician.

jansan 6y ago

Does this mean thath the polls for this presidential election are even more wrong than they were in 2016?

mc32 6y ago
That's a good question and no one really knows the answer, but we will have the answer Nov 4. If your implication is true, I think there is going to have to be a serious re-assessment by the establishment regarding the divergence of their politics vs the populace --and there would be a realization that propaganda only goes so far and coercion is the missing ingredient. If the establishment is right, then obviously they had the right pulse and nothing changes.
- wernerb 6y ago
  Not american, but I believe it was said that this election you won't see the final results perhaps days/weeks even after election. Due to mail in votes I think?
- iso1210 6y ago
  > but we will have the answer Nov 4. Things I've learnt in the last 2 months, Americans have real problems counting votes. I'm not talking about disputed votes (hanging chads), I'm talking about real actual undisputable votes. Also seem to be problems with the concept of free and fair voting - people having to queue for hours to vote is a sign of voter suppression, not of a healthy democracy. In the UK, we vote either in person on the day (from 6AM until 10PM), or in advance by post (which has to arrive at the designated location by the time polls close, either by post, or by dropping into a voting station). If a charismatic person in a pub gets everyone to go voting you can get a rush just before the polls close as 300 people turn up, but an hour would be extreme. Postal votes are opened daily in the run up to the election in front of observers from the various parties as they come in, verified, and stored in a sealed box. On the actual day the in person boxes are sealed at 10pm (or slightly later if people are still queueing) and transported to a central counting location. These counting locations tend to count 50,000 at a time, and in my experience 50-100 people do the counting (in front of observers from the parties), the counts start almost straight away, and the first results come in after an hour or so. Most results are in after about 6 hours, and unless there are transport problems (storms preventing votes from islands getting where they need to go) everywhere has declared within about 10 hours. Now the US has more than the 32 million votes cast in the UK's December election, but this method scales easily enough. So why does it take days for votes to be counted?

cwhiz 6y ago

We’re going to fight fascism, and if you don’t agree with us we’ll burn your house down. America in a nutshell.

Ekaros 6y ago
Fighting "fascisms" with fascism... I find it entirely bizarre that so large scope of population and media is fine with what is going on...
- blog_throwaway 6y ago
  Its so bad that US Citizens just dont get political theory just yet. Still a lot to learn. Its laughable that you thinking burning down property is fascism rather than just arson.
- youareostriches 6y ago
  Fascism is a political strategy involving fear of change and scapegoating. If you’re trying to imply that use of force automatically translates to fascism, then you need to consider situations of community defense against fascists, which ultimately requires force. Self-defense and defending democratic rights is quite different from terroristic violence in the service of subverting democratic and human rights. I reserve the term “violence” to situations described in Hannah Arendt‘s similarly-named essay, in which terroristic violence has historically been used by failing dictators against the legitimate power of the people as a whole.
  - koheripbal 6y ago
    I don't think it's useful to argue semantics. If using violence to combat opposing political speech isn't your definition of fascism, then it's as equally sinister and takes us to an equally dark place. We have seen many examples in the last few years of people feeling so entitled to combat what they consider fascism, that they use violence against anyone they perceive as the enemy. Maybe we don't agree on the definition of words, but this is a bad development.
  - 6y ago

foepys 6y ago

I honestly think that social networks where you connect the whole world were a bad idea. Basing it on ads and thus engagement made it toxic. Political left and right both formed extreme wings that attack moderate opinions for not being extreme enough. The right is often threatening violence while the left is trying to get you fired from your job. We need to get rid of engagement algorithms and actively try to counter echo chambers by injecting moderate content into news feeds.

TravHatesMe 6y ago
> Political left and right both formed extreme wings that attack moderate opinions for not being extreme enough Very well said. I hate all extremes of politics. I like asking questions and being critical. What I have noticed is that critical thinking is attacked viciously from both sides. Asking questions that go against your side's "hard fact" is greeted with intense hostility and vitriol. I would imagine that this behavior is encouraged because it teaches people to not ask questions and follow the herd. Forming your own opinions, coming to your own conclusions, asking your own question -- this is all so offensive nowadays. It is sad because often there is real social risk in saying something that might offend the left/right. If you live in a community that heavily leans to one side, you are scared of stating your own opinions because people could shun you. This social punishment could extend to your children -- what parent would want to take that risk?
- brsg 6y ago
  I agree with this and, for what it's worth, I've found discussions like this are always far more cordial in person versus online - even if you already know the person online. I genuinely blame social media for this "descent into dogmatism". Any time my belief is challenged in an online discussion, I can just retreat into my echo chamber and feel even more confident than before.
- kls 6y ago
  Not too long ago, maybe 4 months ago I saw an article posted on HN which was along the lines of moderates are more dangerous than the enemy, because they empower the other side. It was a fairly radical piece obviously slanted towards hard-left economic policies. I found the comments to mostly be in agreement and pretty depressing given that I am fairly moderate, I lean a little to the right on economic and personal rights, and well to the left on social issues. This is the way most people when I was a child where. The radicalization has been eye opening to say the least but I am staying in the middle, if both sides of the radicals would rather see me dead (one radical basically inferred, that is what needs to be done with moderates) then so be it.

Fumtumi 6y ago

Sometimes it might just be that people formed opinions for matters which are more complex and need more knowledge and thinking of coming to a proper conclusion. If 62% of Americans think homosexuality is wrong, does that really matter? Do we really wanna ask them that and act on it? We are asking to many people what they think independetly of how much time and effort they spend with a topic or if that topic is not superseeded by something else (like an Amendment). No one is going around and asking people what operating system is better. My personal assumption, and this is now very critical for my inner conflict: I do believe every opinion should matter and i do strongly believe in democracy but this only works when the other requirement is true: People are reading up and educating themselfs on politics. Enough people don't. Enough people in politics don't. They are there because they want something not because they care.

engineer_22 6y ago
The founders believed the same thing. Hence the American democracy is formed as a republic, with balance of powers.

factorialboy 6y ago

My company got spammed by Expensify CEOs political views. Some non Americans complained about receiving the irrelevant email. Some Americans were targeting even that. Apparently foreigners have no right to NOT RECEIVE political endorsements that mirrors their political views. Your politics is too toxic. Sorry but it has to be said.

buro9 6y ago
And just after I read this on HN I see this shared by a fellow brit asking WTF https://www.thedailybeast.com/biden-camp-cancels-austin-texas-event-after-pro-trump-ambush-on-campaign-bus https://www.thedailybeast.com/biden-camp-cancels-austin-texa... and indeed... it's hard to comprehend of this level of voter and campaign intimidation like this anywhere. When I've read things like this in the past it's been in failed states.
- mc32 6y ago
  I saw that video. It's not actually clear cut to me who was at fault. The truck was in the right lane, the bus and SUV right behind in the left lane. Bus merged right (into truck's lane immediately in front) SUV could not occupy the space already occupied by the truck as SUV tried following bus. Truck did not yield, SUV tried to wedge in and straddled both lanes. There was subsequent contact but I'm not sure who initiated it. Never the less, you should not drive in two lanes --you should wait till it's safe to merge, it's basic traffic safety to not change lanes till it's safe to do so.
  - wilde 6y ago
    The truck is at fault by being there at all. This is not acceptable behavior. They created the situation with the intent to provoke. It’s classic bullying.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - 6y ago

ykevinator 6y ago

This means that we probably all secretly share a lot of views that tv and parties don't steer us to.

feralimal 6y ago

That's an interesting stat, though its political in nature. I suspect that the disconnect is far wider in scope. Most people are totally perplexed by the disparity between their own reality and what is portrayed in the news. For 3 years we had evidence-free but unrelenting Russia/Trump hate. This seemed insane, but it turns out that was just the warm up act to coronavirus! The reality of what people see around them is sooooo far away from what is portrayed on the MSM. It amazes me that anyone pays any notice to the MSM at. But what it really shows, is that most individuals are not their own authority in their life. They defer to what is the consensus opinion that is blasted at them 24/7 from the MSM, rather than acting according to what they actually experience. Imagine, somehow a person was frozen in time, and seeing how the majority live now - scared of living because someone said something on TV! But that is the power of the media, and why it is such an effective control. The majority disagree with what is portrayed, but feel pressured enough to keep quiet and therefore acquiesce to whatever is being shouted out.

ghthor 6y ago
Sorry for the downvotes, but your opinion is pretty much spot on. People dont like hearing truth about the situation.
- feralimal 6y ago
  Win some, lose some! I cracked a couple of sarcastic 'jokes' in previous threads which got upvoted, so I've got points to burn!

question000 6y ago

Yeah well when you have a president who openly supports the police shooting unarmed people, unarmed people become afraid of saying anything against the president. When you have a president who's openly calling immigrants thieves and rapists, immigrants and their American kin become afraid of saying anything against the president. If you have a president who openly calls your religion "a religion of death" you're going to be afraid. I support firing Trump supporters, of course I do I'm the son of the an immigrant and people like me are being locked up by him for nothing. Why would I ever want to work with someone who openly wants to throw me in jail? Edit: ug I mean identity politics has really been tainting the discussion! Who could be causing this?!

blog_throwaway 6y ago

Is it because most Americans don't actually know Political theory? The 'left' wing of the US is comparable to the moderately centre of the UK (maybe a bit to the right actually). They can't think as one group or groups yet because they are just beginning to actually get a grip of the fundamentals. Adding in, before US folks bite this comment. Please understand that Socialism is not universal healthcare, it is not the right to reliable and inexpensive housing and it is not feeding the children of your country before they starve. These are basic human rights. When you parade around wanting to defend free speech, why not defend these basic human principles? You cant speak if you are unable to due to rent prices going up and not being able to feed your family. Or going to the doctors or university costs you your whole life.

jameskilton 6y ago

Good. Never pass up a chance to keep your mouth shut.

abnry 6y ago
Why did you even comment then?

chromatin 6y ago

I would absolutely be denied opportunities for projects, publicity, promotion, and advancement in my field if I were known to have political views that deviated from the norm in my industry, which I will state for the record is hard left. Consequently, I express no personal non-work related opinions not only at work but in fact not even with “friendlies,” as loose lips sink ships. It is a shitty way to live, given how much time one spends at work.

morelisp 6y ago
Which industry do you work in? I am looking for a new job and would appreciate something hard-left rather than hard-California, which seems to be the new norm in the worldwide software industry.
- chromatin 6y ago
  Not being familiar with California, How would you delineate the differences?
  - tupputuppu 6y ago
    I'd be interested as well. I work for a Californian tech company and I would mostly describe it as "hard left". We have mandatory trainings quarterly where we have to do exams where we say "as long as 50% of tech workers aren't female and black, we 've got a discrimination issue." I've got coworkers who've told me over a beer that they work here exactly so they wouldn't have to work with people who have "other values" and they feel its good those sort of people are outed. So in essence, feels like a textbook example of what the article was talking about, with leftists having consider able freedom to talk about politics and everyone else marginalized.
runawaybottle 6y ago
So I don’t get it, did we create a situation where you cannot discuss politics at lunch with coworkers?
- 6y ago

andromeduck 6y ago

The Lincoln report is also worth a look but tl;dr: - everyone agrees that there should be more viewpoint diversity - but most people still support silencing "dangerous opinions" - and far right and far left more likely to support termination for offensive views https://joinlincoln.org/pdfs/lincoln-2019-viewpoint-report.pdf https://joinlincoln.org/pdfs/lincoln-2019-viewpoint-report.p...

another_sock 6y ago

A better question to ask, rather than the one this poll puts forth (why are Americans scared to share their political views), is "why do people feel the need to share their political views at all?" The reason for this is because people do not spend their time wisely. Instead of trying to convince equally powerless people to see reality in some manner which doesn't matter, the logical thing to do is work to increase your locus of control over your surroundings. Politics don't matter, they are downstream from structures and incentives. Whether you like the police, lgbtq+ rights, abortion, equality, etc is completely irrelevant, how those things make you feel is irrelevant, stop wasting time on them and let other people waste their time on trying to validate themselves and their feelings with political games. Do real activities and increase your influence and control over your surroundings, then exert your values over that sphere. Caring about people agreeing with you is the position of the victim and slave.

kls 6y ago
I feel like you are a lone voice crying in the night. I tell people this all the time, but they are so trapped in the temporal that they cannot see the bigger picture, consumed by emotional thought that they cannot look past it. If people could just stop looking at how they are enslaved they would see the freedoms that they could enjoy.

cosmodisk 6y ago

I'm not surprised people are afraid. I'm in Europe,so naturally most of my connections on LinkedIn are on this side of the pond too, however there are also some Americans.None of them post anything unusual, however the feed occasionally brings up some batshit crazy stuff from related people. You could expect that kind of stuff on Facebook from some 15 years olds,but not from senior people who have been round the corner more than once. You read it and wonder how on earth you managed to get to where you are now with a thought train like that. It's not that much better here, in England, too. People refuse to tell how they voted publicly, but often reveal it in private of they know they won't be judged. Usually the logic behind the decision makes you question person's ability to comprehend things slightly more complex than a paper bag.

agumonkey 6y ago
The sociological aspects of this era are .. sadly fascinating. 2020s material comfort, education systems, insane technological 'tooling' .. and yet we're still a good old mob when too much ambient stress rises. What should we do ? have gatherings to just dissolve tension and make people go back to normal lives without trying to find weird remarks or conspiracies about what's going on ?
- wasdfff 6y ago
  Mandatory two minutes hate every day

roody15 6y ago

Absolutely. For example I like Trumps stance on H1B Visa reform. I cannot share even this one policy agreement with peers without immediate labeling of bigot, racist, etc. People appear to be so emotionally vested in this election at this point it’s better to stay quiet. IMO.

happytoexplain 6y ago
As with most political things, this cuts both ways with increasing polarity. Not just in the obvious way (left/right), but rather for every time I see someone not given the benefit of the doubt when supporting an arguably-not-hateful Trump policy, I also see someone respond to reasonable criticism by assuming a victim mentality, as though any criticism is a personal accusation of racism/sexism/etc.

happytoexplain 6y ago

It's surreal to see how far a lack of self awareness can go, reading all the comments either implying or outright stating, "yes, I agree, and it's the fault of the left/right". Attitudes like that are exactly why I don't share political thoughts in real life.

cosmiccatnap 6y ago

That sounds bad until you think about how many of those are openions are "black people are lesser than white people"