Free Speech Why Does The Silent Majority Exist

Free Speech: Why Does The 'Silent Majority" Exist?

In recent years, there have been a number of surprising results in the political realm, and this is often put down to the fact that there is a ‘silent majority’. At the same time, it wouldn’t be accurate to say that everyone was taken aback by these results.
The Difference
What this comes down to is that there were people who strongly believed that Trump would win or that Brexit would take place, for instance. One way of looking at this would be to say that what they believed would happen just happened to occur.
Another way of looking at this would be to say the reason these people believed this was because of the information that they were exposed to. The news source that they paid attention to was likely to have played a big part.
Two Extremes
The alternative media generally believed that Trump would win and that Brexit would take place; whereas the mainstream media largely believed that the opposite would take place. Therefore, through paying attention to the alternative media, someone could have ended up with a completely different outlook to the person who only paid attention to the mainstream media.
So, while both of these news sources were reporting on the same thing in both cases, it was as if they were reporting on something completely different. What someone saw on social media during this time may also have played a part in what they believed would happen.
The General Theme
If someone spent time looking through their news feed around this time, they may have come across a lot of articles and comments that were in support of Hillary or staying in the European Union. They may have come across posts and comments that were in favour of Trump or leaving the European Union, but this might have been something that rarely occurred.
Based on this information alone, there would have been no reason for them to believe that Trump would win or that Brexit would actually happen. Along with this, it was probably the same when they were around people in the real world.
No Different
One may have typically heard people talk about how they wanted Hillary to win or that they wanted to stay in the European Union. Their friends and family may have also have had same outlook.
Ergo, if one only paid attention to the mainstream media, what they saw on social media, and what other people were saying offline, it would be perfectly normal for them to have believed that the opposite of what took place would have taken place. However, even though their friends and family were just sharing their views, one would have thought that the mainstream media would have got it right.
Out of Touch
After all, this is supposed to be the source that is in tune with what is taking place in the world. Yet, as the mainstream media is run by human beings, it could be said that it is bound to make mistakes from time to time
But while some people are going to accept this explanation; it is not going to be good enough for everyone. There are going to be others who believe that this source of information had an agenda in both cases, and this is why they go it wrong.
Propaganda
Their main priority would then have been to encourage people to vote for Hillary or to make sure that Britain didn’t leave the European Union. With this in mind, there would have been no need for them to report on what was actually going on.
In addition to this, the person or view that this source promoted would have played a part in who was seen as the ‘right’ person to vote for or what option was seen as the ‘right’ option. There is no denying how much control this source of information has on what so many people believe.
The General Outlook
And if someone wanted Hillary to win or for Britain to stay in the European Union, there would have been no need for them to keep this to themselves. Voting for this candidate or this option was seen as the right thing to do – the kind of thing that someone would do if they were an intelligent human being, for instance.
On the other hand, if someone wanted Trump to win or wanted Britain to leave the European Union, it would have been normal for them to keep their views to themselves, or to only tell a few people. Voting for this candidate or voting for this option would have caused them to receive a lot of negative feedback from so many of their fellow human beings.
Slander
​
Ultimately, this was seen as something that was black and white by a lot of people, and so it was a lot safer for someone to keep their views to themselves, if they had the ‘wrong’ view that is. In general, it wasn’t possible someone like this to talk openly about their views and to have a healthy debate.
If they had opened up, there is the chance that they would have been labelled with a word (or a number of words) that had ist at the end and/or they may have been told that they had some kind of phobia - it doesn’t end there though. Opening up may have caused them to lose their friends, their job, and they might even have had a visit from the police.
Conclusion
With so much at stake, they would have done the right thing by keeping their views to themselves. By doing this, it would have stopped them from experiencing unnecessary drama and, when the time came, they would have spoken when it mattered.
Still, what this shows is how bad things have become when it comes to free speech, and how it is a big risk for someone to say anything that goes against what is seen as being acceptable. As we can see, one of the outcomes is that certain people will keep their views to themselves - but what effect will this have on the world as time goes by?

If you treasured this article and you would like to collect more info about polonia w szkocji please visit our own web-page.