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

I get called a nazi. I’m half Jewish. Incredibly insensitive of many people equating words with death.

People find a lot of comfort with the validation of their own ideas from others. And since that comfort translates into community, they seek out others of similar feather.

I am afraid that this behavior paired with the "personalized" algorithms are a big part of the problem. Instead of pushing people to facts and figures, new ideas and uncomfortable positions, the systems are instead designed to do the opposite. Hide those things in order to hold attention.

Remember: Attention is the currency of media.

Pair the online phenomenon with the false equivalencies created by right-wing media. That "their ignorance is the same as your knowledge", and you create our current political and social environment ripe for exploit. We now have a whole lot of people who think they're right because they find others who also think they are right.

Why do you believe that?

Honestly, that's a terrible idea. You want society to have the resources to pull up Nazis by the grassroots. Otherwise, they can readily leverage personal power into political power.

I believe that's working is intended. Reddit doesn't particularly want controversial opinions, at least, not controversial enough for most people to signal they hate them. Because that generates a clear signal to Reddit that most people hate that content, and people who hate the content don't come back.

As with face-to-face human interaction, the trick is to start by reading the room.

As opposed to the President who said he wanted to fundamentally transform the United States?

What makes you sure I'm trying to imply something?

I've provided context by identifying the interests behind Cato Institute, which is the organisation that conducted the poll and wrote the article.

Have you inferred something from what I wrote? If so, would you like to say what that is?

I think that's fascinating! Very interesting, thanks!

And yeah, he should have, and probably did. And is braver than I would probably be in the same situation. I'm not saying anyone's beliefs are wrong at all.

I have many beliefs that probably offend others and I don't want to talk about. Many of these fall into a "to each their own." But they aren't political, and I'm certainly not trying to influence law or policy or push them on others. For political views, when you are talking about law and affecting everyone, I think it's important to talk about these.

In general for me, examining my beliefs I've always considered a very positive activity. Sometimes it strengthens them, or makes me question. Having people question my beliefs makes me think. Either way I feel stronger by the end of it, even if there is some discomfort in the middle.

I think it's beliefs that we aren't willing to think about or question that scare me the most personally.

Today, many Christians are disparaged by atheists, as the assumption of many in western late-modern cultures is that public discourse ought to be secular.

Yet this is often based on an assumed common ground of Enlightenment humanism, with an a priori ruling out of any possible religious basis for claims. However, as Kuhn and Polyani have shown, science is a very human endeavor, full of underlying beliefs and assumptions that color and guide inquires, as well as setting conceptual limits on what is and isn't possible. Many of the great early-modern scientists (Kepler, Newton, and Boyle come to mind) were driven by their Christian convictions to break with older inaccurate theories and follow the observational data.

I think much of the deep political divide in our culture ties back to a philosophical rejection of truth, à la Nietzsche, leaving only the raw power grabs. As a Christian who believes truth is both real and objective, yet also has a personal/relational character, I'm particularly saddened when Christian communities participate in power grabs that perpetuate deep political divides rather than living our a self-giving love that would build trust for conversations across political (or racial or socioeconomic) divides.

Its acceptance of a secular zeitgeist that tolerates no real diversity of viewpoints, and Christians easily fall into the same habits.

You're conflating thoughtful self-examination of your own beliefs and the motivations behind them with simply abandoning those beliefs. Just because you hold a belief that goes against the majority opinion doesn't necessarily mean that you're wrong, but neither does it give any guarantee that you are right, either. These are exactly the cases which warrant the most thorough research and self-examination.

The point that the parent is trying to make is that so often, nowadays especially, people will simply shut down and refuse to hear any challenges to their most tightly held beliefs. Instead, they choose to retreat to the comfort of like-minded echo chambers - something that is all too easy with the prevalence of algorithmically reinforced Facebook news feeds and heavily moderated subreddits which explicitly ban any dissenting opinions.

Is being an atheist hard to say, argue, or back up with fact?

Contrast it with, as an arbitrary example, the idea that America should build a giant wall along one of its massive borders, in the era of air travel?