
62% of Americans Say They Have Political Views They’re Afraid to Share - admiralspoo
https://www.cato.org/publications/survey-reports/poll-62-americans-say-they-have-political-views-theyre-afraid-share#introduction
======
Wohlf
Most interesting to me is how common this is across demographic groups.

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

~~~
lambdasquirrel
Well as a POC, there's plenty of things I don't feel comfortable sharing. A
lot is situational. It's _really_ hard sharing anything that might make people
realize they might not be as "progressive" as they think they are – regardless
of where they are on the political spectrum.

Liberals are frequently unaware of their blind spots (but if you take care,
they can be corrected). And then there's a swath of conservatives that don't
think they're racist. If you should suggest it, it's too easy for them to dig
themselves deeper into a hole.

All too frequently, I'll wish I stuck to non-political / comfortable topics –
and remembered that political-correctness is there to protect _me_ as an
individual, so I can live in my bubble and get on with the day, even though
PC-culture might be bad policy for society.

~~~
skinkestek
> And then there's a swath of conservatives that don't think they're racist.

You are aware that the way you phrase it makes it sound like we all are?

I've recognized a few times that I say things in a way that makes people mad
even though my original point was fine.

~~~
all_usernames
> makes it sound like we all are

Ding ding ding! Yes. We all are. Conservatives and liberals.

Everyone is programmed with racist attitudes from the culture-at-large. Many
or most never question these unconscious attitudes.

In my experience, folks who have been actively working on racism and social
justice for years if not decades are the first to admit that they too carry
racist, largely unconscious, beliefs and attitudes.

A lot of people don't seem to grok unconscious bias.

~~~
tmpz22
"We all are. Conservatives and liberals."

Genuine question, does this include black people?

~~~
JAlexoid
Yes, because racism is:

Racism, also called racialism, the belief that humans may be divided into
separate and exclusive biological entities called “races”; that there is a
causal link between inherited physical traits and traits of personality,
intellect, morality, and other cultural and behavioral features; and that some
races are innately superior to others.

[https://www.britannica.com/topic/racism](https://www.britannica.com/topic/racism)

~~~
Fjolsvith
Pretty fancy description. I was taught that racism was treating someone wrong
because they didn't look like myself.

~~~
shadowgovt
There's a couple of definitions. Formal academia and colloquial definitions
have drifted apart.

------
partiallypro
One thing that has slowly eroded American ideals (IMO) is the politicization
of literally everything. Not only can you not have or share a "bad" thought on
politics itself...but something completely unrelated to politics (that is now
politicized) is also something you could be burned at the stake for. Then
there are just people that share their politics openly and often to spite
others.

We've essentially split into two Americas, one red and one blue. The people in
the middle (which I generally identify with) are left in the cold...and not
only are left in the cold but are attacked by both sides for not abiding by
the doctrine. Honestly, the Left is the worst at this. They will actively try
to ruin your life over wrongthink. I am much more likely to share a
controversial opinion with someone on the Right than on the Left. But it's
both sides, a local race here has a Republican attacking another
Republican...for endorsing Romney in 2012. It's like I'm living in a bizarro
world.

Horseshoe theory is real.

~~~
theplague42
Everything is political; being apolitical just means you support the status
quo.

~~~
drewcon
Or being apolitical just means you don’t have time or inclination to obsess
about the political origins and implications of every atomic micro-decision in
your day because doing so is a tremendously tedious and unproductive burden
that frequently yields no meaningful insight or behavior change. Not every one
needs to be an activist about every thing.

If a person feels strongly about some special political cause, fantastic, they
ought to make their case convincingly. But the idea of castigating others for
not putting in the time or enthusiasm to share their superior moral clarity is
exhausting.

~~~
pwinnski
I generally agree. It's impossible to have a knowledgable position on every
single issue, and a full-time job to have a position on whatever is popular in
a given week. The end result is that on most issues, most of us default to the
status quo, because, well, that's how the status quo works. It's literally the
default until enough people care to change it.

In other words, "you don’t have time or inclination to obsess about the
political origins and implications of every atomic micro-decision in your day
because doing so is a tremendously tedious and unproductive burden that
frequently yields no meaningful insight or behavior change" is a lot of words
to say that you support the status quo.

I think everybody does, on issues that aren't important to them.

~~~
drewcon
Semantics, but I view “support” as an active measure.

There are loads of issues folks are just not engaged with enough to have a
qualified opinion (their perspective not mine), which is fine. I view that as
living in the status quo but not necessarily evidence of endorsing the status
quo.

For instance, do we really expect your average citizen (American in this case)
to have a thought out POV on qualified immunity? Policing tactics? Effective
tactics to address diversity in the workplace? Herd immunity? Actuarial risk
assessment of economic activity during the pandemic? If not are they
supporting the status quo?

I think most people just shrug and I don’t blame them. Processing information
in the era of the death of expertise has made even having an opinion right now
an absolute hellscape.

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

~~~
Sverigevader
I go back and forth on this. I think you can always find people in your life
with whom you could have these conversations with. Especially at work I think
you'd have a high chance of finding someone with whom you'd actually want to
discuss these things because you respect them a lot given their work ethics
and personality. They'd have different ideas and thoughts than you but
wouldn't try to "convert" you in any way.

I don't know... I think discourse with real people in real life is still worth
something.

The only thing I simply won't discuss with anyone, either online or not, is
theology. It will never lead to anything good. I think everyone has to find
their own way there.

~~~
EForEndeavour
> The only thing I simply won't discuss with anyone, either online or not, is
> theology. It will never lead to anything good. I think everyone has to find
> their own way there.

Ultimately, yes, each person must arrive at their own personal set of beliefs
and conclusions, if that's what you mean. But surely silent introspection
without ever engaging with anyone else can only take one so far? Everyone is
exposed to the ideas of others, and discussions often lead to epiphanies or
meaningful progress in someone's own personal journey (conversations with
counselors and therapists come to mind). Maybe experience will also teach me
that theology/spirituality/some other prickly topic is just never worth
discussing with anyone, but I also believe that it's possible to have
productive discussions about a topic that is this close to what makes us
human.

...Sorry, I just realized this post counts as discussing theology with you!

------
Barrin92
Is there a baseline for how high this was in the past other than the mentioned
58% a few years ago in the article?

I can't imagine that there wasn't substantial amounts of this during say, the
heights of McCarthyism or when gay-rights weren't as accepted. Not to mention
another interesting meta question, are people nowadays more prone to share
that they feel like they cannot express their opinion?

My grandparents for example have it so ingrained to not question religious
belief that they probably wouldn't even perceive it that way. Or just women in
general. The stereotypical "housewife" only a few decades ago wasn't
participating in public discourse at all and certainly not expected to. With
the exception of a few high profile intellectuals women were mostly excluded
from political life. I have a hard time even comparing this to today.

~~~
cableshaft
I'm sure it existed back then to some extent (and to a large extent in
specific periods, such as McCarthyism), but all that predates social media,
which makes it so much faster and easier to spread this information to
everyone in your life.

In those days, you'd have to have someone want to bring it forth to the police
or government for anyone to bother, and most people won't know about it until
it hits the newspaper, if it does. But now it's the court of public opinion
with instant judgement and you can be fired from your job, unfriended or
blocked by half your friends, and everyone publicly disavowing any association
with you before you even find out about it or have a chance to defend
yourself. Which, from what I've seen, rarely makes a difference. The damage is
already done and doesn't usually ever get undone.

Of course a bunch of people are going to keep their mouths shut on political
views in this environment. They want to keep their career and friends.

------
munificent
I think a big part of this is that the definition of "say" has changed
dramatically in the past decade.

Today, people interpret that to mean, in part at least, "broadcast on the
Internet where I have no control over the audience and where it will be
recorded digitally and available indefinitely".

10-20 years ago "saying" just meant verbalizing something around a handful of
people you could see. You'd know who you were talking to, and if you said
something dumb, human memory and time would soften its edges eventually.

Ask people in the 1990s if they would self-censor themselves when appearing on
TV and they'd probably say yes at the same rate that people say they self-
censor when "talking" today, in large part because computers are such a large
medium of communication now.

------
kgraves
This reminds me of a quote:

"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of
the oppressor" \- Desmond Tutu

And being silent is not even an option, because now "silence is violence".

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of
> the oppressor" \- Desmond Tutu

I don't really like this quote.

It starts off with a false premise, because neutrality is required in order to
_have_ justice. A neutral assessment of oppression is that it's wrong.

What Desmond Tutu is really getting at is that so-called "neutrality" which
defends the status quo when the status quo is oppression is wrong. But that's
not what actual neutrality would do.

And then the quote gets put forth to quash demands for actual neutrality as
illegitimate, even when the people in need of it are the victims rather than
the oppressors.

~~~
krainboltgreene
> It starts off with a false premise, because neutrality is required in order
> to have justice.

I mean that's just not true? There are quite a few subjects that are currently
polarized where each side considers theirs to be just and enforcing it
justice.

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

~~~
cs02rm0
And the more moderate your views the more likely it is that the flack will
come from both sides.

~~~
shirakawasuna
"Moderate" views are just the status quo, so of course that's the case. In an
oversimplified 1-dimensional view of politics ("both sides") where you have a
left, center, and right, you will always be criticized by the other two.

~~~
29083011397778
There is absolutely room in the middle for compromise. We are not the extremes
put forth by the news agencies, but shades of grey.

Perhaps more bluntly, are you yourself a Nazi, a Communist, or happy with
where the US is politically? If you're none of the above (as you likely
aren't), then you must be able to see that moderate views can still be left or
right-leaning.

Maybe the kindest reading of your comment is that the average person that's
overly critical on Facebook only sees in black and white, left vs right. And
if so, we completely agree :)

------
hprotagonist
There's _lots_ of shit i do not talk about at work.

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

~~~
kelchm
Does it not concern you that a significant portion of those surveyed think
it’s okay to fire someone for their (financial) support of a political
candidate? You don’t have to talk about it for people to find out — it’s part
public record if you are contributing more than $200.

Seems insane to me.

~~~
notJim
People in this thread claim to be concerned about others not feeling
comfortable expressing their political views. And yet, a sibling to my comment
which was simply expressing a political view is flagged/dead.
[https://i.imgur.com/9UtP4mU.png](https://i.imgur.com/9UtP4mU.png). Will
people speak out for this view, even if they disagree with it?

~~~
randompwd
The president is not an omnipotent king.

~~~
notJim
What does this have to do with my comment? I'm not saying the president
flagged the thread, I'm saying HN users did. I don't think the president
browses HN.

~~~
randompwd
The comment was about firing a CEO who donated to Trump. I'm pointing out that
the US is a democracy which doesn't have a king. Being president doesn't mean
one can do & act as they want..unlike donating to a would be king who would
not be limited/balanced by the other branches of government.

------
trabant00
If the majority hide their political views then there is no way to engage with
them and ever present your side on issues.

Which migh sound bad but is actually a natural response to being forcefully
fed extreme ends of political stances.

So the debate over media and internet missinformation might be for nothing.
People adapt arround obstacles. In the end there could only be bots responding
to bots and campaign members patting eachother on the back for the number of
likes the bots generated.

~~~
thephyber
> If the majority hide their political views then there is no way to engage
> with them and ever present your side on issues.

Was this ever true? Do the majority of companies encourage talk about religion
or the majority of churches encourage talk about politics?

The people react to stimuli like {media, campaigns, bots} just like they do
any other marketing: there is a game theory response to stimuli. If they get
overwhelmed on one platform, they will change habits (eg. move to a different
platform, discuss only in person where there are no bots, discuss these topics
less). I suspect campaigns have been around long enough that more people (with
the help of information widely distributed on the internet) have gained a
different tolerance to the same old campaign tricks.

------
madhadron
Looking at the methodology it looks like a reasonably conducted survey, but it
has a basic methodological flaw: it cannot distinguish between any particular
models, such as "a privileged group oppressing contrary beliefs" versus "the
peace treaty of tolerance is functioning and bigots must suppress their
beliefs to keep its protections." Further, the causes of self censorship need
not be identical. Both of the two models I just posited can be in play at the
same time in various subpopulations and around various issues. And there are
lots of group/individual relations you can posit for this. Social science is
hard.

So this data set might be an interesting preliminary trial, but releasing it
as a finished study is either sloppy or malicious on the part of the Cato
Institute.

Edit: Reading the other comments on here, I'm inclined towards malicious as it
seems spun to create just the kind of rhetoric that we're seeing here.

------
chosenbreed37
Interesting...I wonder if there was an implied context for the survey. I think
there is a difference between saying something in a discussion between friends
over a cup of coffee/glass of beer and putting something in an email or social
media of any kind (i.e. anything that leaves a permanent record without the
full context of the discussion and crucially missing any non-verbal cues).

------
joe_the_user
Is it wrong to say some beliefs should be "shamed away"?

The thing is, aside from traditional liberal and conservative views, it has
been documented how the Internet gives play to a variety of essentially
delusional belief systems; flat-earth, anti-vax, 5G fears, "crisis actor"
conspiracies, etc. Basically, things that in earlier times someone might
imagine one day but give up through realizing that their friends and neighbors
might (correctly) think they were crazy if they continued to entertain such
idea.

And this isn't to say such ideas are absolutely distinct from political ideas
- just about any type of delusion is now given a particular kind of political
spin since the committedly delusional are an easily directed group.

The situation is - once people got their ideas from the neighbors and maybe
their schools and churches. Gradually, they came to also get their ideas from
mass media. This was already somewhat artificial but at least it kept a single
social authority. Now, people get their ideas from mass media and "the
Internet"("dispersed", "narrow-cast" media), with mass media struggling to
keep up some unity of beliefs (though mass media itself easily cast as a
manipulator of its own sort).

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

------
stormdennis
Just the other day a tribunal upheld the dismissal of Lecturer who was fired
for views expressed in a conversation with his superior.

[https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-
news/...](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-
news/southampton-university-lecturer-sacked-woke-culture-remarks-jewish-
people-a9632451.html)

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

------
logicslave
The political environment in the USA is interesting. Common thought is that
the media and general sentiment on social media are representative of the
countries overall opinion.

But this is not really true, people arent as swayed as the internet likes to
believe. It's a giant fabricated hive mind, where a ton of people feel
adversarial towards the commonly held opinions, which are in fact, not
commonly held.

------
stmfreak
Cancel culture has quenched political discussion. It’s impossible to share
views, even among coworkers you might consider friends, without serious risk
to one’s employment.

The effect is likely more polarization since we cannot moderate each other’s
opinions with stories of our own experiences.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Cancel culture has quenched political discussion.

To the extent “cancel culture” describes something new, it has not.

> It’s impossible to share views, even among coworkers you might consider
> friends, without serious risk to one’s employment.

It always has been, for certain views.

 _Which_ views are more safe and which are more dangerous has changed over
time. People who think that it has suddenly become dangerous is people who
have views that have recently become less privileged in this context.

~~~
thaneross
I can tell you, mentioning I'm in a polyamorous relationship with my coworkers
feels _less safe_ today then it did 5 years ago. People before didn't really
understand (they still don't) but I usually encountered an attitude of live-
and-let-live tolerance. Today I get 3 reactions: conservatives who are afraid
to say anything so they avoid me, progressives who treat me like some kind of
novelty, and the rest who don't care. I don't consider this progress.

~~~
dragonwriter
I suspect that _specific_ issue is less to do with “cancel culture” and more
to do with and more to do with polygamy and polyandry in recent years
becoming,among other things, reality TV fodder and thus issues that are more
in the public consciousness and about which people are more likely to have
come to a somewhat firm opinion on.

~~~
thaneross
That doesn't match my experience. People are afraid to speak openly to me and
that does me a disservice.

~~~
disposekinetics
> People are afraid to speak openly to me and that does me a disservice.

I'm ideologically aligned with you, at least on this, and I would be afraid to
speak openly. I think you are correct about this diagnosis.

------
DevKoala
This doesn't surprise me. I am also afraid to express myself for fear of being
rejected by most of my friends or excluded from my professional network.

It is sad that I can only be honest and say things such as "let's wait for the
facts" under a nickname on some dark corner of the web.

~~~
Traster
Maybe take some self-examination. Your friends should be your most sympathetic
audience, if you're afraid of expressing your opinions even to them, maybe you
need to have an honest converstaion either with yoursself or with them.

~~~
DevKoala
My family is my most sympathetic audience. Also, my closest friends understand
me well and accept who I am.

However, I have tons of friends apart from the groups mentioned above; people
that I appreciate, whom I have met through different hobbies or passions. None
of these bonds have a connection to politics, but it is common for some of
them to bring up political topics during these months. I reserve my opinions
on these topics because I understand that there are a lot of emotions
involved. Moreover, we all have biases. We are not at war, we just digress on
the solutions the country needs.

------
supergrumpybear
I think there needs to be a distinction between political ideas and political
ideologies. Especially in the United States, where there's an obsession
between the GOP and the DCCC, even though neither political party represents a
majority.

When you ask respondents on political ideas, like voting rights, immigration,
state welfare, infrastructure, etc, a much broader and more moderate viewpoint
emerges.

Also there seems to be a more growing disconnect between people in power and
the masses. I think as data science becomes a more developed craft, more
people will become aware about the motivations of our political actors.
Sensationalism and political correctness are usually signs of a deeper
problem---

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

~~~
apsec112
Politics has always been high-stakes, but politicizing everything would
effectively mean destroying society.

"I am a pro-choice atheist. When I lived in Ireland, one of my friends was a
pro-life Christian. I thought she was responsible for the unnecessary
suffering of millions of women. She thought I was responsible for killing
millions of babies. And yet she invited me over to her house for dinner
without poisoning the food. And I ate it, and thanked her, and sent her a nice
card, without smashing all her china."

[https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/rkpDX7j7va6c8Q7cZ/in-
favor-o...](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/rkpDX7j7va6c8Q7cZ/in-favor-of-
niceness-community-and-civilization)

------
boomboomsubban
The actual question asked was

>The political climate these days prevents me from saying things I believe
because others might find them offensive

With the 62% includes anyone who "strongly agrees" or "somewhat agrees."

I would answer "somewhat agrees" to that question, not because I'm afraid to
share my beliefs but that I don't want to discuss the topic or I'm not
knowledgeable enough to have confidence discussing my beliefs.

------
deanCommie
almost 500 comments and noone mentioned that the Cato institute has a fairly
strong conservative bias: [https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cato-
institute/](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/cato-institute/)

If someone says something racist, they are exercising free speech.

If someone in return calls that out for being racist, and shames them, they
are ALSO exercising free speech.

So long as the government does not punish either of them, noone's Free Speech
is being compromised.

But the outcome of this exchange is that the first person is going to claim
repression then vote in this survey and say they are afraid to share their
political views.

Frankly, the only problem I see is people's inability to introspect.

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

------
fortran77
What "sharing" though? Not discussing at work? I don't talk about anything
non-business other than "appropriate business small-talk" with people I only
know professionally. It's common courtesy.

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

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

~~~
tux1968
The November US election is going to be very interesting in that regard. If
people are truly so upset with the current state of social discourse enough to
hold their nose and vote for Trump again, it might just embolden some more
vocal and confident push back. Of course, that doesn't seem very likely given
all that's going on in the world. But I would have never predicted his winning
the first time around either.

~~~
catalogia
I'm not sure people upset with the current state of social discourse have much
incentive to vote for an incumbent. That seems inherently counterproductive.

~~~
tux1968
I think that people upset with the dominant narrative may be the reason Trump
got elected in the first place. That same socially dominant sector has been
railing against him non-stop for 4 years (as well as everything else they're
doing). So if some people are afraid of speaking out against that narrative,
the idea of secretly punishing it with their vote might come into play.

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

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

------
ianhorn
> The survey found that many Americans think a person’s private political
> donations should impact their employment. Nearly a quarter (22%) of
> Americans would support firing a business executive who personally donates
> to Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s campaign. Even more, 31%
> support firing a business executive who donates to Donald Trump’s re‐
> election campaign.

Holy shit. Am I reading this right? 53% of Americans would support firing
someone based on a donation to a presidential campaign? Later in the post it
says this figure rises to 71% of people under 30.

I've always wondered how far this extends in the minds of people okay with
this. If they found out in a year or two that someone donated to trump's
campaign, does that justify firing too? I imagine this dystopia where someone
gets fired for a donation, only for their new employer to find out about the
donation and fire them too, and so on, leaving them either unemployable, or
dividing employment along party lines.

\-------

edit: Yes, it crossed my mind that we're assuming these are disjoint groups.
We might be double counting the intersection of the two groups. The true total
is the percent listed above minus the percent who support firing a Trump donor
while also wanting to fire a Biden donor. I can't imagine the intersection
being significant, so I left it out. I expect these figures are approximately
accurate if the survey is accurate.

~~~
baddox
> Holy shit. Am I reading this right? 53% of Americans would support firing
> someone based on a donation to a presidential campaign?

Are you against this in principle, for all possible presidential candidates
regardless of how bad their views and policies and actions are (by your own
definition of "bad")? Or do you just think that, right now, no major candidate
is "bad enough" that you would advocate firing someone for supporting that
candidate?

~~~
Udik
> Are you against this in principle, for all possible presidential candidates
> regardless of how bad their views and policies are

Not the GP, but of course yes. If someone is good enough for your political
and legal system to advance his candidature at the elections and be voted by
citizens, then who has the right to damage me for my legitimate political
choice?

~~~
ghaff
There are a lot of very fringe political parties; getting on the ballot in at
least a few states isn't that big a hurdle. Without necessarily agreeing or
disagreeing, if you're a CEO (and the context of the question was around
business executives) is it necessarily unreasonable if a board decides that
their CEO's support for some controversial fringe presidential candidate is a
distraction? (This seems less clear with a rank and file worker but they're
also more expendable if something is becoming an internal controversy.)

~~~
Udik
I understand that fringe political ideas can have a negative impact on the
personal relationships in a work environment, especially for people in
prominent roles.

However I guess the keyword is _can_. Tolerance should be exercised from all
sides and political ideas should not be a motivation in and by themselves.
However it's also true that the CEO of a company is in some cases him/herself
a political figure, so I guess it depends on the case.

~~~
baddox
What is your response to the paradox of tolerance?

~~~
Udik
That the solution to it- becoming intolerant towards intolerance- is an option
that needs to be regulated. The default of society should be tolerance, and
very well defined limits should be put on it, if the need arises. If any actor
in society is free to decide what it is fine to to be intolerant to, then you
have effectively given people license to be intolerant. Which is what is
happening now.

So, to be clear: intolerance should be frowned upon by default. The community
can decide to be intolerant towards some things, but those things must be
agreed, shared and made clear once and for all. And at that point, that
agreed-upon intolerance becomes a law and can be actually enforced by the
state itself.

~~~
baddox
I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but it sounds similar Popper's standard
response to the paradox: that we should reserve the right to use force to
suppress intolerance, but it should be a last resort. And I agree.

However, I'm not sure what kind of "regulation" you're referring to, because
if you mean that, say, only the government gets to decide when to use force to
suppress intolerance, there's the obvious problem of "what happens if the
government is intolerant?"

~~~
Udik
> there's the obvious problem of "what happens if the government is
> intolerant?"

Well, I guess that at some point you have to accept one risk or another. Any
system can fail in one way or the other.

I personally don't like laws limiting freedom of speech; but I also don't like
angry mobs that openly and proudly exercise intolerance of anything that falls
into their own entirely subjective definition of intolerance.

I would like the state to protect me from those who try to set the limits of
freedom of speech as it suits them; but I understand that if the state wants
to take from the people the power to silence unacceptable speech, then it must
provide some minimum guarantee by taking it upon itself. Best of all would be
no laws, but education and common sense, and of course tolerance, from all
parts: but again, what do you do if that fails?

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

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

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

~~~
DenisM
That's a very interesting idea. Do you think people will be more forthcoming
this way?

~~~
replyifuagree
I think that's one of the techniques used by Robert Cahaly to predict the
Trump victory. He calls it "social desirability bias”

I read something where he thinks that the bias is even worse this time around,
he's calculated Trump down by 3 points right now.

~~~
DenisM
> he's calculated Trump down by 3 points right now

Do you mean Trump has less support this election by 3% compared to the last
election?

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

------
nickgrosvenor
Things like twitter have unwittingly become Orwellian. A log of everything
you've ever said and thought for the rest of the world to see.

This is why the future of the internet is going to be a closed end internet.

Something that isn't accessible by everyone.

Whether through paid entry, invitation, or geography, the future of the
internet is going be more closed end than it is now.

The open ended internet of today will become a junk yard of spam and identity
thieves in the future.

Early adopters and rich people were the first to get on the internet and
they'll be the fist to get off of it too.

For something more private.

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

------
pessimizer
I don't share some of my political beliefs for the same reason I don't talk
about my atheism to my grandmother right now, so soon after my grandfather
died. While I think they're right, they're both hurtful and unproductive to
express. IMO one both should have some views that would bother people (because
reason leads one to them), but sometimes choose not to express them because
one's opinion isn't the most important thing in the world for other people to
hear. I wish the OP meant that 62% of people have a conscience. Instead, I
think it means a lot of people are afraid other people will get mad and fire
them if they're openly racist.

"Strong liberals" are apparently the only people who are proud enough about
what they believe to be judged for it. Or maybe it's just impunity because
it's illegal to fire people based on race, gender, and (often) sexual
orientation, so they feel protected. Overt racists should lobby for similar
protections, although I don't think they'll have a lot of luck.

~~~
chrisco255
The racist label is tossed around so frivolously these days, like Nazi, to
become practically meaningless except to intimidate people into silence.

The truth is that strong liberals have become extremely aggressive in
intimidating and shaming anyone who disagrees with them in the modern era. And
it's disturbing and completely corrosive, toxic and destructive.

I believe the U.S. needs its right brain and left brain to openly discuss and
debate issues because neither side has a monopoly on morality or correctness.

Democracy doesn't die in darkness. It dies in uniformity. Have you ever lived
in a one party country? It's the closest thing to hell on Earth.

~~~
thephyber
> Have you ever lived in a one party country?

The USA _is_ a one party country -- it's just very good at marketing it as two
parties. They never actually solve the problems they claim to care about --
they just keep using the same wedge issues for successive elections.

Until we actually have competition from other parties, the two party oligopoly
(enforced by entrenched interests at the state level) makes our political
system as useless as a one party political system.

------
8bitsrule
I'm not too concerned about people in "the land of the brave, the home of the
free" who feel unable to express themselves in words. Their actions (or lack
thereof) speak much louder than any words. Injustice is self-evident, and 'I
know it when I see it.'

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

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

------
sxp
One way of approching this issue is The Kolmogorov option proposed by Scott
Aaronson:
[https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3376](https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3376)

It can be summarized as " Instead the iconoclast can choose what I think of as
the Kolmogorov option. This is where you build up fortresses of truth in
places the ideological authorities don’t particularly understand or care
about, like pure math, or butterfly taxonomy, or irregular verbs. You avoid a
direct assault on any beliefs your culture considers necessary for it to
operate. You even seek out common ground with the local enforcers of
orthodoxy."

SlateStarCodex has a related post on the concept titled "Kolmogorov
Complicity...": [https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/23/kolmogorov-
complicity-...](https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/23/kolmogorov-complicity-
and-the-parable-of-lightning/)

~~~
mellosouls
SlateStarCodex an ironic reference in this context, nice to see it back up.

~~~
rsync
Sorry to hijack ... what is the story now at SlateStarCodex ?

I checked as late as a few days ago and it was still disabled ... and now it
appears to be back ?

~~~
mellosouls
I just went to it from the parent comment, then checked the main page which
notes:

 _[EDIT 7 /21: This post is now a month old, and I am cautiously optimistic
that the Times has changed their mind. There is no further need to take any of
the actions described below.]_

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

------
Shivetya
try being a Libertarian

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

~~~
mathgladiator
Try liking Ayn Rand.

------
rayiner
There is a remarkable corollary in these statistics:

> Nearly two‐ thirds of Latino Americans (65%) and White Americans (64%) and
> nearly half of African Americans (49%) have political views they are afraid
> to share

According to the first chart, 42% of “strong liberals” feel like they can
share their political views. That group is disproportionately white:
[https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/27/5-facts-
abo...](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/02/27/5-facts-about-black-
democrats/ft_20-02-26_factsblackvoters_01). So there are all these people of
color who are substantially more afraid to share their political views than a
group of disproportionately white liberals on the far left.

~~~
SaltyLemonZest
For those who aren't aware, the reason for this is well-known: the average POC
statistically leans right on all social issues except for race.

~~~
dragonwriter
> For those who aren't aware, the reason for this is well-known: the average
> POC statistically leans right on all social issues except for race.

Blacks are the most supportive of abortion legality in most or all cases of
any race other than Asians, so that's one issue that isn't race that Blacks
lean to the left on.

[https://www.prri.org/research/legal-in-most-cases-the-
impact...](https://www.prri.org/research/legal-in-most-cases-the-impact-of-
the-abortion-debate-in-2019-america/)

~~~
rayiner
It’s complicated. They are also more likely to say abortion is morally wrong
than many other groups, which has political implications. (Legality versus
non-legality isn’t really the main issue today.)

