Study suggests social media is key contributor to self-censorship
Most Republican voters support childhood vaccine mandates, yet may be discouraged from publicly expressing these views, a new study suggests.
To determine the source of this disconnect, researchers conducted a survey that revealed differences between Republican voters who support childhood vaccine mandates and those who do not.
According to the study, most Republicans surveyed supported immunization requirements for children and held favorable attitudes toward vaccine safety, while those who said they opposed vaccine mandates did not acknowledge this support exists – and expressed a greater willingness to share their vaccine views to others.
In contrast, the Republicans who supported vaccine mandates were largely aware that their views were in the majority, but tended to be less outspoken.
This phenomenon, called the false consensus effect, describes a misperception by people about how widespread their views are and a belief that their opinions are shared by others – when they are not.
…
“Those in the majority may simply sit out of the conversation because they see online environments as being dominated by extreme views and don’t want to engage in uncivil discourse,” said Dixon. “What’s significant is that those in the majority may self-silence even when they are aware of their majority status.”
The study was recently published in Human Communication Research.
I've learned to keep my mouth shut when my liberal/progressive friends discuss gun control. The left side of that debate is marbled with misunderstandings, misrepresentations of fact, and flawed reasoning.
Gun control isn't a very important issue to me, but much of the liberal side of the debate just makes me cringe. I've learned to just shut up about it, though, because when I speak up I usually get shouted down and abused for going against the groupthink.
No fucking way I ever vote Republican again, though.
What you think is the "left side" of that debate... isn't. The two factions you see fighting are both moderates/liberals, but who differ in their level of authoritarianism.
In contrast, actual leftists are folks like the Black Panthers. As the saying goes, "if you go far enough left you get your guns back."
What, you think people have unrestricted access to death machines is ok?
Thanks for helping demonstrate the dynamic I was describing
Thanks for not answering my question.
Your question is unpleasant. Why would a person want to engage with it?
It's complicated my good sir.
I am a brown person. We do not have the same luxuries when we are stopped by the police. We get harassed by racists. BLM protests where we were armed were the most peaceful. While the ones where we weren't were filled with abusive riot police.
I do not want death machines. But when death machines already exist and are in the hands of evil men, I have little choice.
Well then banning them stops them being in everyone's hands, 'evil' people included. This just sounds like the 'good person with a gun to stop a bad person with a gun' argument.
And how is that banning going so far?
Maybe after a couple hundred school shootings?
We aren't going to see it in our lifetimes so going to stay strapped.