
Poll: 62% of Americans Say They Have Political Views They’re Afraid to Share - bko
https://www.cato.org/publications/survey-reports/poll-62-americans-say-they-have-political-views-theyre-afraid-share#liberals-are-divided-political-expression
======
tabbycorn
Can you blame them? There's examples already. Brendan Eich got witch hunted
out of Mozilla when somebody discovered some $3000 worth of donations to
causes that don't align with the loudest voices of today.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich#Mozilla](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich#Mozilla)

~~~
elil17
“Causes that that don’t align with the loudest voices of today” is a funny way
of writing “a campaign to ban gay people from getting married.”

Not all views are equally valid. Some are antithetical to a free and equal
society and are deserving of harsh criticism.

There’s nothing wrong with a society where people feel uncomfortable saying
that they think their peers don’t deserve equal rights.

~~~
tabbycorn
> There’s nothing wrong with a society where people feel uncomfortable saying
> that they think their peers don’t deserve equal rights.

It's possible that the reason he donated was because he disagreed with the
particular wording of the proposition as written, not that he thinks his peers
don't deserve equal rights.

And for the tiny donation, he lost his job. He's unfit for employment in tech,
it seems, unless he's the owner of the company. That is a chilling effect.
Suddenly people who aren't perfectly in alignment with, again, the loudest
voices, have to choose their every word (and donation) perfectly or risk
losing their livelihood.

Consider that there are fiscal conservatives who think that we don't get
nearly enough value from our tax dollars, so we should reduce taxes. Can they
donate to conservative causes without losing their jobs?

Can you imagine the insanity if voting records got leaked?

~~~
elil17
Really, what language in prop 8 might he have disagreed with?

Being a CEO of a large organization is not a human right. Part of the job is
being the public face of the organization, and that means that, if you’re a
CEO, you can lose your job if you say or do something stupid in your personal
life. Everyone knows that when they sign up.

Brendan knew the stakes, messed up, and now has to face the punishment. Which
is being the CEO of a slightly smaller organization.

~~~
tabbycorn
I can't put words in his mouth. I recall at the time wishing that, while they
were "redefining marriage", they could go ahead and formalize a separation
between civil unions and marriage in the church, because I was concerned about
the state of California telling priests that they needed to perform weddings
for whoever asked them to be married, or else face fines / jail time.

Nobody said being a CEO was a 'right'. You're correct that part of being a CEO
is being the public face of the company, and I agree with you that it's
reasonable for the members to not want to be represented by somebody who is
repulsive to them. Maybe something like an actual vote of confidence or vote
of self-similarity is not out of the question.

But, we _don 't_ vote for this kind of thing, rather, people get run out town
by a (sometimes literal) mob in the court of public opinion by, again, the
loudest voices. And, because blood is in the air, they don't get support
(quiet or loud) from all the people at the company who either agree with them
or who just don't want mob rule to exist (because even though they're not
socialists, or trade unionists, or Jews, they see that the wheel of "social
justice" will eventually turn on them, too).

> if you say or do something stupid in your personal life

Easy with the name calling. I'm here taking the opposite position and you jump
to the word 'stupid'. No need to get personal.

Okay, maybe you didn't mean "stupid" like "no right-minded person would have
that opinion" instead of "it would be stupid, given the current political
climate, to say this publicly"... but I think then you would be agreeing with
me, so you probably meant the first sense.

~~~
elil17
How is same sex marriage redefining marriage when it was already legal prior
to prop 8?

Again, where is your example of someone getting run out of town by a literal
mob? This guy is still incredibly wealthy.

~~~
fortytwo79
You keep trying to pull prop 8 back into the conversation. This isn't a
discussion on gay marriage.

While I agree that a CEO should be aware of their public image I think it's a
sad commentary on the state of our society that public attacks and shaming
have become the vehicle of protest now. This happens frequently with the
constant push to de-fund voices by attacking their sponsors. Big corporations
stand down, not because they agree ideologically with the vocal mob, but
rather because they want to not become the next target.

How about instead of attacking the careers and livelihoods of those we
disagree with, we instead support the ideas we do agree with?

~~~
elil17
The idea I support is defending equal rights. How is trying to hold
accountable powerful people who oppose equality rights anything but supporting
the ideas I do agree with?

Also, how can this not be a discussion of gay marriage? Aren’t you just saying
that opposing gay marriage is not worthy of criticism?

------
DeonPenny
It's insane how we got here, but its not surprising.

Since 2016 political speech especially conservative views are being seen more
and more not like a politician stances but an all encompassing bigoted
ideology regardless of the data and proof behind such stances.

While I personally haven't lived long enough to see a swing in the rights
direction I feel like the left condemnation of everything on the right it's
going to easily bite them in the butt eventually.

I bet its happened this way in the past.

~~~
david38
They don’t have to conservative. They just have to be not cutting edge.

Believe there is a difference between feeling and being? “Feel assaulted” by
words is now described as “being assaulted”. “Feel like a woman” is now “is a
woman” through some linguistic slight of hand by a) saying gender is how you
feel and b) saying when you say man/woman you mean gender, not sex.

By redefining commonly used words those who wish to change society to fit
their view have managed to get tons of people to silently go along because
well, that’s what the words mean now.

Very first amendment- freedom of speech. How do you get around this? Classify
everything as hate speech and “verbal assault”.

Playing the victim has become so fashionable lately, everyone is trying to
jump in it. Black? You can go back to the time of slaves in the when no living
remembers. Woman? Women are always victims and have no agency, regardless of
the facts. If you have no agency, you can’t be blamed for anything. It used to
be women could blame all men for everything. Since BLM, they aren’t allowed to
blame black or Hispanic men. The list goes on.

Now we are left with just white straight men who have all the power and (only)
evil in the world. Except it will crumble. As people gleefully engage in
activities they once protested, those pesky cell phone videos make it onto
YouTube. Right now it’s a bunch of Karens. Funny how that tries to get
explained away. Soon you’ll see the rise in videos of bad behavior from the
other protected groups.

The real death of this I think will be when more “white saviors” try to get in
on the action and do more than say stupid shit on social media to score
points. They’ll start to actively engage with the people they pity. If they do
it for any length of time, they’ll realize these poor suffering babies are
people, like anyone else.

I’m a minority and find it amusing when we’re described in such infantile
terms. Date a few of us, get involved, and suddenly “oh you guys have so much
family drama!” or “why do you make such bad decisions?” Hahaha welcome to the
club. Stop talking about race and start talking about decisions, poverty, etc.

Yes poverty is talked about, but only allowed if you’re not white. If you’re
black, you’re poor because of racism. If you’re white, without batting an eye,
you’re designated white trash.

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

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

------
JMTQp8lwXL
Reminder this means 38% aren't afraid to share those views. The article
mentions specifically in the workplace. For a time, I worked under a VP in a
large public software company that wouldn't let anyone under him reimburse
alcohol sales on team outings (food was fine; there was no objection to team
outings to build rapport, either). It was strange, it stood opposite to
company-wide policy of permitting employed-provided alcohol, and it likely had
an inconsequential effect on his career, but he did push his personal views on
his reporting chain.

~~~
kerng
Missing the point here. What does not wanting to reimburse alcohol in this
case have to do with politics? Can you maybe share more context?

Is the idea because people get drunk and talk politics?

~~~
JMTQp8lwXL
As a society, we visited this topic quite some time ago and it was the 18th
amendment. It was an incredibly political moment for our country.

~~~
happytoexplain
You seem to be expressing some personal sensitivity here. If this person was
disparaging people who drink alcohol (or was pushing for making alcohol
_illegal_ ), you should specify that. All you've said is that they didn't
cover it as a work expense - it's a controlled, mind-altering substance, so
that's totally non-political given no additional motivations.

~~~
JMTQp8lwXL
The organization had an established policy, permitting employer-provided
alcohol at work social functions. He pushed a personal view, without the
consent of his management, to the maximal extent his role gave him.

~~~
happytoexplain
>He pushed a personal view, without the consent of his management

You should have said this originally. I can understand if this was some
crusade he was pursuing, but nobody could infer that from your original post.
Also, you should really consider how ironic it is, in a thread about people
being afraid to express political opinions, that, when asked how not
reimbursing alcohol is political, you responded with a hyperbolic analogy in a
sarcastic tone to the effect of "we had this thing called prohibition" (you've
since edited that comment, though the tone mostly remains).

~~~
JMTQp8lwXL
By stating it "wasn't company policy", I had imagined it was clear it was a
personal decision, overriding the rest of the company. I have updated my
comment to reflect this.

------
jgwil2
Previously discussed:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23932321](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23932321)

------
Yetanfou
I live in Sweden where we've been having similar problems for a long time. I
used to look at the US as a flawed (but not flawed beyond repair) example of a
state where the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression worked as a
bulwark against the oppressive political climate we've become known for in
Sweden. I would never have thought that in just a few years time the USA would
overtake Sweden on this front. Where the 'åsiktskorridor' (literally 'opinion
corridor', more or less comparable to the Overton window) in Sweden is
gradually opening up, the opposite seems to be happening in the USA and those
constitutional guarantees don't guarantee anything since they only apply to
interactions between the state and the individual while the oppression comes
from non-governmental groups.

This oppressive climate where opinions are not shared has no positives at all,
zero, nada, zip, zilch. All it does is create suspicion, doubt and division
where in other circumstances a few words would have broken the ice and allowed
understanding and trust to grow. In a society where the meaning of words keeps
on being changed so as to weaponise them and the wrong word at the wrong
moment can get you fired, where the common history is being demonised, where
shared culture is divided into ethnic enclaves which are only deemed
appropriate for those of the 'correct' ethnicity... the outlook is bleak. This
type of activism used to be limited to the most extreme corners of academia
but it has escaped into the wild and is spreading like wildfire. The more it
spreads, the more violent the reaction will be.

In Sweden we will eventually overcome our difficulties now that it has become
so obvious that those who pushed the agenda were wrong. These people will not
be held accountable, they will keep their jobs, most of them will act as if
they had no part in the suppression of those with differing opinions even when
confronted with hard evidence of their complicity. This is the way things work
here, it is the way things have worked here for a long time - at least since
WWII. What will happen in the USA when those who use Orwell's _1984_ as a user
manual lose momentum is up for grabs. The response better be measured and
civilised or the gains of decades of civil rights work stands to be undone.
The sooner those of sane mind of all ethnicities get together to call a halt
to this madness, the better.

Get at it before it is too late.

------
recursivedoubts
The non-violent answer to this polarization and hysteria is subsidiarity and
devolution of political power to the various states. Libertarianism at the
state level.

We will not pick this answer, and, if we did, it would not be allowed.

"You are an Acceptable Level of Threat and If You Were Not You Would Know
About it"

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

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

~~~
seankimdesign
I doubt a high percentage includes outright bigots and morons. The way I see
it, it's opinions such as disagreement with ACAB movement, viewing looters as
fundamentally doing more harm then good, and other sensitive topics such as
affirmative action damaging the "out of fashion" minorities such as Asian
Americans. People are careful not to speak loudly about these opinions due to
the fear that they're in the minority and will be branded as the enemy of the
modern day "progressives".

~~~
mthoms
>viewing looters as fundamentally doing more harm then good

Almost nobody would disagree with that statement but I'm sure you know that.
Suggesting that the majority on the left (aka "progressives") support the
looting is extremely disingenuous.

It's plainly obvious what the _real purpose_ of a comment like that is.

~~~
seankimdesign
That's exactly my point. Almost nobody, when debating under mutual good will
and faith, would have much to disagree with any of the topics I've touched on.
These are sensible, human-centered talking points that have somehow become
branded taboo because any attempt to discuss topics that might cast an ounce
of blame away from the conservatives is being branded as wrongthink and as
"derailing the conversation".

It's funny how you yourself have immediately labelled me as being a non-left
having read the comment that I made. Our most urgent threat may be the right
wing conservatives at this very moment, but sooner or later we will face a
real reckoning with what we thought were our most outspoken allies. Be careful
with how you use the term progressives, because thought policing and book
burning is anything but.

