You're hardly alone, and when I voice this concern to my vocally liberal friends, the vast majority don't give any reply at all and pretend that my message never reached them or wasn't worth responding to. I find this brand of (what is essentially) censorship to be quite disappointing.

------------

It’s November 2008, after President Barack Obama’s first election, and one of professor Ruth R. Wisse’s undergraduate students comes in to speak with her.

“I really did want to tell you that I’ve been feeling very guilty,” says the student, a freshman.

“About what?” asks Wisse, an outspoken conservative faculty member and prominent Yiddish scholar.

“Well, I worked on the Obama campaign,” the student says.

Wisse laughs, and replies, “You and everyone else—why would that necessarily make you feel guilty?”

“You see, I’m for McCain, and I voted for McCain.”

Wisse was now puzzled—and intrigued. “Well, why did you work on the Obama campaign?”

“Because I so wanted to be with my roommates and with everyone else.”

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/10/1/conservatives-sc...

I'd say if they are ignoring messages they don't like, then you are doing well. After all, we have the right to say what we like -- not the right to be taken seriously.

I am not saying it means your friends are being wise or balanced, it's just that what they are doing is not censorship.

Oh yes sorry I shouldn't have conflated the two. I, like the parent poster, have taken care to not voice not-commonly held opinions that would be met with scorn or disbelief since I want to avoid that sort of misery. I suppose my own experiences are a disappointment that my peers often do not open themselves up to understanding the logic and reasoning behind someone's beliefs that do not match their world view.

I guess the Brendan Eich situation would be a decent example of the kind of censorship I am referring to, where we now seemingly cannot respect the right of others to have opinions and beliefs that are vastly different from our own.

How does that anecdote support your point? It's quite natural to want to work with your friends. Also, there's no indication that person's friends actually pressured / shamed the person into working for Obama.

It is a demonstration of the strong social pressure to conform to one's environment, even if that means going against their actual preferences.

>Also, there's no indication that person's friends actually pressured / shamed the person into working for Obama.

If only overt and direct kinds of social pressures mattered, then we wouldn't be having similar discussions about structural and subtle forms of racial bias, gender bias, etc.

It's not the intent of the giver of (unintended) pressure that matters, it's how the receiver interprets and responds to it.

Yes, but that is not an exclusive political/politcal-correctness phenomenon, so it's not particularly interesting. This is a universal phenomenon in all walks of life. This is a phenomenon experienced by liberals in deeply conservative areas. This is a phenomenon experienced by atheists in deeply religious areas.

There's a political science term for this: preference falsification. People were surprised by the recent conservative win in the UK. It wasn't anticipated by the polling, probably for the reason you mention.

Interestingly, people are falsifying their preferences through omission. Rather than responding affirmatively or negatively, they are simply not responding at all... until they enthusiastically check a box on a ballot.

I don't quite buy it. Opinion polls should be a pretty risk-free way to talk about your real preferences. If people are afraid to expose their controversial views as a checkbox on an anonymous form, why aren't they afraid to do so in the voting booth too?

There is an expression "voting-booth candidate", meaning someone that people don't feel comfortable telling the pollsters they'll vote for, even when they will. Jesse Helms polled as losing his senate seat a couple of times when he won. And Marion Barry's comeback bid as mayor of Washington, DC, looked dead: he won by a solid margin.

A lot of political polls are phone-based, at least in the US. Maybe talking to someone, even someone you don't know and are not likely to meet again, triggers the same inhibitions that you have picked up via interactions in your social circle?

> I don't quite buy it. Opinion polls should be a pretty risk-free way to talk about your real preferences.

Yet it happened: https://www.yahoo.com/news/conservatives-look-winners-surpri...

Yes, I know the results didn't correspond with the polls in the UK, but I don't think the proposed explanation is any good.

Back in my day, you had to gain someone's confidence, get invited to a party at their house, share a bottle of jack, then get invited into the back bedroom with two of their skeeziest buddies and some crank before you found out they liked Trump. In the Facebook age, everyone wears it on their sleeve.

You mean, you haven't been downvoted for moderate right views on HN? May be you just haven't spent much time here

It's true that you may pay a fee of a few karma for such an opinion, but by and large the discussion itself stays civil and focused on the ideas themselves. This is a huge step up from the usual social violence that would follow in many places.

I'm impressed by both the community at the moderation that allows this to happen.

Well the whole thing about people who support the notion, "speech should have social consequences" don't see how bad it is for democracy. When a group says there is no discussion to be had opinions and beliefs aren't challenged and with that the any chance of affecting them for anyone.

> It is a shame, both sides lose.

No both sides don't lose... One side wins more and the opposition drums up support, by not challenging the winnings sides arguments, opinions and beliefs. You don't win arguments by attacking people.