SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Some interesting studyage from good ole pew.
Politics can be a sensitive subject and a number of SNS users have decided to block, unfriend, or hide someone because of their politics or posting activities. In all, 18% of social networking site users have taken one of those steps by doing at least one of the following:
- 10% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because that person posted too frequently about political subjects
- 9% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they posted something about politics or issues that they disagreed with or found offensive
- 8% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they argued about political issues on the site with the user or someone the user knows
- 5% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they posted something about politics that the user worried would offend other friends
- 4% of SNS users have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on the site because they disagreed with something the user posted about politics
Of course, that means that 82% of SNS users have not taken any steps to ignore or disconnect from someone whose views are different – or have not encountered any views that would prompt such a move.
Liberals are the most likely to have taken each of these steps to block, unfriend, or hide. In all, 28% of liberals have blocked, unfriended, or hidden someone on SNS because of one of these reasons, compared with 16% of conservatives and 14% of moderates.
Personally, I almost never ignore anyone for ideological reasons. You can't argue with someone you can't read responses from.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @07:43PM
> Every Klansman that ever wore a hood back when it wasn't a joke was a Democrat.
I doubt that was strictly true. But even if it is, I doubt your sincerity. Seriously.
Posts like that are what get people like you deservedly unfriended.
Why?
Because it is a lie masquerading as a technical truth.
The passage of the civil rights act fractured the democratic party such that all the racist white conservatives in the party left for the republican party. That exodus was the tipping point for when the two parties began to line up ideologically with liberal and conservative politics. Strom Thurmond is the classic example, The CRA was enacted July 2nd, 1964 and Thurmond switched to the republican party two months later.
Nowadays it is pretty well understood that being in the republican party does not mean a person is racist, but if they are racist it is practically certain that they are a republican.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday March 18 2015, @11:28PM
The passage of the civil rights act fractured the democratic party such that all the racist white conservatives in the party left for the republican party.
Nice theory. Reality would like to disagree. This is the "Nixon's Southern Strategy" lie. But it IS a lie. Clear your mind and see if you can learn something today.
Tricky Dick Nixon was many things, political naif has never been listed as one of his many sins. Southern racists (and hell, I'm Southern so lets be blunt and to a close approximation just simplify to White Southerners) of the the 1960s had been hating Republicans for a century. The joke about preferring a 'yeller dog over a Republican' wasn't funny back then, it was a simple statement of fact. Nixon knew this. So, examine the playfield (Wiki has the details) and riddle me this: What possible strategy could Nixon have used to convince a Southern racist voter to pick a progressive/liberal Republican California Governor over George Wallace running on the Dixicrat ticket?
No, voting records are clear, the Solid South remained Democrat as long as it remained racist. We are only now, at long last, finally removing most of the taint from statewide and local offices. But it is happening due to migration into the Sun Belt and as the old racists finally just die off, not because they ever decided to start voting Republican in large numbers. Don't be confused by the 1980 and 1984 Presidential results, they are the outlier; Reagan was so compelling a candidate and his opponents so repellent he carried a LOT of states Republicans had no business winning under normal circumstances. Look at Senate and Congressional strength by Party to see a more accurate reflection of Party loyalties during the period.
..if they are racist it is practically certain that they are a republican.
Only in the NewSpeak where racist has been redefined as anyone opposed to Progressive policies and where Robert "Exalted Cyclops" Byrd, Rev. Sharpton isn't a racist, Eric Holder isn't a racist, President "Granny was Typical White Person" Obama isn't a racist, Jimmy "I hate Jews" Carter isn't a racist, etc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 18 2015, @11:35PM
> But it IS a lie. Clear your mind and see if you can learn something today.
Calling it a lie and then offering only sophistry without even a citation, much less a citation from an unbiased source, is not going to learn me anything today. But I do recognize that your rant gives you comfort. So I guess I learned that you know how to self-sooth.