"Ever" and "acceptable" make the cut off contact questions difficult for me. I have lots of family and a few friends, or at least friendly acquaintances, who are hardcore MAGA; I have not cut off contact with them, nor do I want to. But is ACCEPTABLE to do so? I mean, I think maybe yes? Certainly it is not NEVER acceptable.
I think if we do a follow up poll on family estrangement/speech we could expand this question to "sometimes" "rarely" or "never" but in this instance we just wanted to capture who the most extreme on this question are!
I think the framing of “abolition of Israel” is a little too biased and negative. Does that mean you kick out the Jewish people in Israel or does it mean you just extend the right to vote to Palestinians? I think it matters if you are talking about the abolition of a political structure or of the people living in the territory? I would like to see a poll for the same idea but in the way Zohran describes it “An activist who thinks Israel has a right to exist as a country with equal rights for all, not a hierarchy based on religion or race.”
We wanted to know how people would react in more extreme circumstances, not mainstream ones! That's why we asked about Netanyahu not a liberal zionist. I am also curious about your question but doesn't help us get at the limits of people's tolerance for extreme speech/speakers.
I’m actually not surprised at how low the support was given how the question was framed. If what the question is getting at is interpreted as “genocide of the Jews”, it’s admittedly even worse than allowing a white supremacist to speak, since the white supremacist can be just bigoted and not *necessarily* calling for the mass murder of all Black people.
It was just striking because the other polled questions were fairly neutral and didn’t have such a slant.
What defines an “extreme idea”? And what differentiates it from a discredited idea? For example, you could say a speaker with the view that “Western civilization” must be protected from being diluted by the culture of immigrants is extreme. But if that same person said white Europeans are inherently genetically superior, that would not just be extreme but also discredited.
I just wonder about the bias in selecting these types of questions for gauging speech tolerance.
I think more Republicans are more okay with athletes voicing their opinion than they used to be because it has become increasingly clear that the pro athlete class has quite a few MAGAs as well.
I think Dems are more likely to see cutting off family as ok because it doesn’t really feel like just a political disagreement to them, even though it might to Republicans. A lot of Republicans are white and kind of insulated from the worst things our government does, while LGBTQ people, minorities, etc. are more likely to be Democrats, and Republicans are always targeting those groups. So the stakes are more personal and immediate.
Like when my dad votes Republican it’s not just about taxes or spending or whatever. It feels like he’s voting to take rights away from people I know and care about. Republicans say Dems want to destroy religion or come after their way of life, but there really isn’t a comparable thing the other direction. When I vote Democrat it doesn’t actually take anything away from my dad or his friends, but when he votes Republican it actually can hurt people in my community.
Regarding judges endorsing candidates: I'm opposed to judges endorsing candidates, which is bad, but the question is whether judges should be prohibited by their employer from endorsing candidates. Federal judges' employers can't prohibit them from doing anything, really, because they have life tenure, so I am opposed to federal judges' employers from prohibiting federal judges from endorsing candidates. I think it depends on how the question gets parsed anyway.
Netanyahu speaking on campus is worse in my opinion than a white supremacist just because he is a leader of a foreign country who has arguably committed crimes against humanity and should be arrested. To me that’s different than just platforming views, and I would be more accepting of a non-Netanyahu Israeli nationalist speaking on campus
Well honestly I don’t think colleges should invite any of the above (their speech should be legal but that doesn’t mean tuition bills have to pay for it), but to me the case against Netanyahu is more than just speech
I wonder how much work "allowed" is doing on the free speech question. Allowed *by whom*? The state? The campus administration? The student body? Are people reading in "should be invited to speak"?
>> There’s a 10-point gap on the question of whether people avoid expressing political views out of concern for negative reactions from their employer. Just 25% of noncollege-educated people said yes to that question while 35% of college-educated people said the same. - Jerusalem
This seems like a more complicated question than presented. I’d want to know what the breakdown is by (1) perceptions of employer’s own bias, and (2) perceptions of employer reaction to different valences of speech (IE right left center).
Not sure how I would take the allow to speak question, as in they are speaking on the topic specifically (like I guess sure but idk why this would be something you spend money/access on depending on the topic) or you can correctly characterize them as having that view but are speaking in a different capacity that does align with university's core functions.
"Ever" and "acceptable" make the cut off contact questions difficult for me. I have lots of family and a few friends, or at least friendly acquaintances, who are hardcore MAGA; I have not cut off contact with them, nor do I want to. But is ACCEPTABLE to do so? I mean, I think maybe yes? Certainly it is not NEVER acceptable.
I think if we do a follow up poll on family estrangement/speech we could expand this question to "sometimes" "rarely" or "never" but in this instance we just wanted to capture who the most extreme on this question are!
I think the framing of “abolition of Israel” is a little too biased and negative. Does that mean you kick out the Jewish people in Israel or does it mean you just extend the right to vote to Palestinians? I think it matters if you are talking about the abolition of a political structure or of the people living in the territory? I would like to see a poll for the same idea but in the way Zohran describes it “An activist who thinks Israel has a right to exist as a country with equal rights for all, not a hierarchy based on religion or race.”
We wanted to know how people would react in more extreme circumstances, not mainstream ones! That's why we asked about Netanyahu not a liberal zionist. I am also curious about your question but doesn't help us get at the limits of people's tolerance for extreme speech/speakers.
I’m actually not surprised at how low the support was given how the question was framed. If what the question is getting at is interpreted as “genocide of the Jews”, it’s admittedly even worse than allowing a white supremacist to speak, since the white supremacist can be just bigoted and not *necessarily* calling for the mass murder of all Black people.
It was just striking because the other polled questions were fairly neutral and didn’t have such a slant.
What defines an “extreme idea”? And what differentiates it from a discredited idea? For example, you could say a speaker with the view that “Western civilization” must be protected from being diluted by the culture of immigrants is extreme. But if that same person said white Europeans are inherently genetically superior, that would not just be extreme but also discredited.
I just wonder about the bias in selecting these types of questions for gauging speech tolerance.
I think more Republicans are more okay with athletes voicing their opinion than they used to be because it has become increasingly clear that the pro athlete class has quite a few MAGAs as well.
I think Dems are more likely to see cutting off family as ok because it doesn’t really feel like just a political disagreement to them, even though it might to Republicans. A lot of Republicans are white and kind of insulated from the worst things our government does, while LGBTQ people, minorities, etc. are more likely to be Democrats, and Republicans are always targeting those groups. So the stakes are more personal and immediate.
Like when my dad votes Republican it’s not just about taxes or spending or whatever. It feels like he’s voting to take rights away from people I know and care about. Republicans say Dems want to destroy religion or come after their way of life, but there really isn’t a comparable thing the other direction. When I vote Democrat it doesn’t actually take anything away from my dad or his friends, but when he votes Republican it actually can hurt people in my community.
Regarding judges endorsing candidates: I'm opposed to judges endorsing candidates, which is bad, but the question is whether judges should be prohibited by their employer from endorsing candidates. Federal judges' employers can't prohibit them from doing anything, really, because they have life tenure, so I am opposed to federal judges' employers from prohibiting federal judges from endorsing candidates. I think it depends on how the question gets parsed anyway.
Netanyahu speaking on campus is worse in my opinion than a white supremacist just because he is a leader of a foreign country who has arguably committed crimes against humanity and should be arrested. To me that’s different than just platforming views, and I would be more accepting of a non-Netanyahu Israeli nationalist speaking on campus
Well honestly I don’t think colleges should invite any of the above (their speech should be legal but that doesn’t mean tuition bills have to pay for it), but to me the case against Netanyahu is more than just speech
I wonder how much work "allowed" is doing on the free speech question. Allowed *by whom*? The state? The campus administration? The student body? Are people reading in "should be invited to speak"?
>> There’s a 10-point gap on the question of whether people avoid expressing political views out of concern for negative reactions from their employer. Just 25% of noncollege-educated people said yes to that question while 35% of college-educated people said the same. - Jerusalem
This seems like a more complicated question than presented. I’d want to know what the breakdown is by (1) perceptions of employer’s own bias, and (2) perceptions of employer reaction to different valences of speech (IE right left center).
Democrats claim they want a big tent party, then how come Jeffries has not endorsed the Democratic nominee for mayor?
Not sure how I would take the allow to speak question, as in they are speaking on the topic specifically (like I guess sure but idk why this would be something you spend money/access on depending on the topic) or you can correctly characterize them as having that view but are speaking in a different capacity that does align with university's core functions.