More Gen Z Americans identify as LGBTQ than as Republican
A new survey has revealed that Gen Z Americans are more LGBTQ+ and less Republican than any previous generation.
let's gooo
And if they don't vote, it won't matter.
So help them vote. Volunteer with efforts to get out the youth vote. Push for universal mail in voting where you are, or at least early voting. Help get politicians and initiatives on the ballot that they actually care about.
Shaming and complaining about the demographic you want to reach accomplishes nothing.
Obligatory-
If you are a legal resident of Wisconsin, and are not currently serving time or on paper, you can register to vote entirely online if you want, and you can request absentee ballots for all elections for the entire year (no reason needed, but necessary annual renewal, it’s my New Year’s resolution every year because it’s so easy to accomplish. entirely free of charge ofc.).
Just go to www.myvote.wi.gov to register, request absentee ballots, check your registration, or find your polling place. If you have any difficulty with your registration, you can find your local rep and contact them directly.
Please vote. Please vote for your own wellbeing. Please.
Edits to fix link redirect per convo below
I hope things will change, but we still have abysmal turnout. TX started allowing early voting over 40 years ago and we still struggle to get people to the polls. Early voting is a span of 2 weeks, where in the 1st week, polls are required to be open for at least 9 hours and can be open from 6 AM to 10 PM on the weekday and shortened hours on the weekend, and in the 2nd week, polls are required to be open at least 12 hours a day and typically have the same hours as election day. Yet we still have virtually no lines through all early voting and a massive line on election day.
It doesn't help that the news only bangs the final day of voting into peoples' heads.
I've been helping my fellow zoomers by figuring out what their townships/town wards/city districts are, then what their local/state/federal legislative/executive/judicial districts are, then who's running for what position, then where to vote and (primaries and generals).
Information is power!
no u
But both sides are the same or my vote is worthless or it's too hard to vote or something
It is genuinely too difficult in some places thanks to voter suppression.
Yeah, those are all actually true.
Yes, but political engagement can't revolve around voting.
It's shit. You have to navigate a beurocracy and don't even always have choices down the ballot. And when you do, you often have no idea who the candidates are beyond some half baked Facebook page. It's also a huge burnout pit. Put months of stress into a binary outcome you can barely control. And even that is if you're engaged in canvassing and etc, otherwise it's just a chore.
Youth need to be mobilized in long term action projects. Something like Encode Justice for example, where they make civic engagement a part of their daily life, is far superior. It's also harder, but that comes with doing something actually impactful.
Sadly some of them are republican
Not sure why you're being downvoted - you're 100% correct. People voting against their own demographic is nothing new.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_German_National_Jews
Please get out and vote.
I really hope that they do.
Because I am worried about the camps.
We're all worried about the camps.
Unless all these Gen Z kids actually fucking VOTE it won't matter, because Boomers fucking do.
Oh, you think the choices are trash? Well fucking vote in the primaries then. Get involved at a local level, and start promoting candidates that represent you. Don't just removed and moan that the choice is between a codger and senile draft-dodger.
FPTP coupled with Electoral College means the only ethical vote is for the least problematic candidate.
Basic mafs. Simple as.
The reason nobody young is ever is involved with primaries is because it's driven by corporate lobbyists. How are the youth supposed to get involved with that when they are competing against billions of dollars? The choices will always be trash until we end the lobbying. It doesn't work with just promoting candidates that represent you. It involves massive sums of money that 99.9 percent of Americans will never touch.
Sanders came very close to winning the Democratic nomination two election cycles in a row, and his funding was largely individual donors, while Clinton and Biden were being funded by corporate interests. Sanders probably lost in 2016 because the DNC put it's thumb on the scale; he lost in 2020 because many primary voters didn't believe that he could win against Trump, and wanted a candidate that could peel away moderate Republicans. And that's a national level.
At a local level, there's a lot less money, so fucking start there, where it's not being driven by greed.
By paying attention to the media, reading platforms, thinking critically, and making it out on voting day.
When I was young, I participated in the primaries for Obama's first election (Texas...). I was more or less put in my damn place by the older members and not allowed to have an opinion. It was Hillary this or that and racist comments otherwise. Seriously, Gen Y & Z need to participate, vote, and get involved at the primary and electoral college level or nothing is ever going to change. Don't let those assholes decide who gets to run. I really really wonder what kind of impact those votes, in the areas that have true primaries, will have if we step up early.
I literally have volunteered for local campaign offices every year since I turned 18. Don't use cynicism to justify laziness
You don't need to get "involved" just go get registered and fkn vote, It has a much bigger net effect that holding up signs on a street.
Lobbyists are a crucial part of the political process as far as educating legislators and their staff. Legislators cannot possibly know the workings, let alone the body of statutory and case law at play, with every activity and industry legislatures have to regulate and facilitate.
Seems like you realize the money they spread around is the problem: bundlers, megadonors, super PACs, dark money, financial and agency disclosure laws, etc., that's where we need to start reforms.
I agree there's a history of young people not voting, but every presidential election year there's a whole group of kids who were 14 at the time of the last election but are 18 for the current one.
Every four years since I can remember, that group of kids has been increasingly engaged politically, I think recent YouGov polls on this have been like very high, like 75% intend to vote and of those like 85% intend to vote more liberal candidates.
Trump was so bad, for everyone. Everyone remembers Trump's wanton child separation policy, his partisan Supreme Court picks, his COVID failures, and his constant lies and vitriol. Even small children can see Trump for what he is, maybe even with more clarity than most adults. Point, people who were ten years to seventeen years old at the beginning of Trump's presidency are eligible voters now. The Republicans see this tsunami coming at them. TV news has been calling it a blue wave to scare up red voters, but it's really a youth wave.
At the same time, older conservative voters are dying off. Republicans know they will never fairly win another popular presidential election. Their plan is to steal the White House with lawfare or outright terrorism.
Just be warned, not everyone thinks Trump was bad. A lot of people look at their economic situation prior to the pandemic, and think that it was pretty good, and so Trump must be okay. Sure, he raised taxes on the middle and lower class, but that was sold as a tax cut (...except that it was very, very temporary), and the hike went into effect under Biden.
Doesn't help when the people who run the primaries go to court to ensure that they do what tf they want. 🤷
Bud, that's politics. Our hope is to get these young kids engaged and then send them off to a law school that focuses on public interest law and restorative justice, instead of churning out more corporate defenders.
Growing up I'd here this phrase that I thought was some lawyer joke, "first thing we do, is kill all the lawyers."
I realize now it's not a joke, but part of a fascist's plan to legalize atrocity.
Super this. Don't care what anyone privately identifies as as long as it includes "voter" in the tag cloud.
I live in the rural south. TBQH, I'd rather that most of the people around me didn't vote, since I'm pretty sure I know which way they're going to vote, and their votes will largely be to take away my rights.
Yeah primaries are absolutely important
Said every election since ever and nothing changes. Pipe dreams, like a general strike.
Nothing changes because the people that say they want real, significant change never show up in enough numbers to get shit done. If gen Z really gives a shit, then they need to all get out and fucking work for it. I've voted in every election and every primary I've been eligible to, since turned 22. If 100% of the gen Z kids that are eligible to vote showed up to the primaries, they could get any candidate through that they wanted. Primaries typically attract far, far fewer voters than the general election does; in some states, primary participation is as low as 3% or eligible voters.
Well, they have voted more in the last few elections. Just gotta hope they don't get complicit and continue to show up.
Personally, I am too emo to vote...
Because people are already jumping to conclusions without reading the article. Here is the core of the survey data.
https://www.axios.com/2024/01/23/gen-z-less-religious-more-liberal-lgbtq
Identifying as Republican went from 32% in the Boomer Generation to 21% in Gen Z. Identifying as LGBTQ+ went from 4% with Boomers to 28% with Gen Z.
With the exception of millennials, who were born between 1981 and 1996, Gen Z adults are notably less likely than those in other generations to identify as conservative.
Or in simpler terms, both Millennials and Gen Z are equally less likely than those in other generations to identify as conservative.
Because people are already jumping to conclusions without reading the article. Here is the core of the survey data. Identifying as Republican went from 32% in the Boomer Generation to 21% in Gen Z. Identifying as LGBTQ+ went from 4% with Boomers to 28% with Gen Z.
The conclusion I would have jumped to is that the percentage of Gen Z who identified as LGBTQ+ would be greater than that who identified as Republican. So it seems I don't actually need to read it. 😜
28% LGBT is what seems dubious. Lot of spicy straights in that pool I suspect.
I think people are feeling more inclined to label themselves as LGBTQ when they're heteroflexible as well as young people better recognizing things like the asexuality spectrum.
Nah, just more people admitting they're bisexual.
Yeah that's not right. No other poll shows it being that high, but they found one they "agree" with and used that number lol
Then can we please be out and get out and vote?
I'm voting for Biden unless there's another nominee that will be the predominant choice against Trump. I don't like either of them but the choice is easy. Biden can't win my state, but I'm still going to vote for him literally just because he is running against Trump. I might cow about how I ate the Dems won't run on much else, but the contrast is big this time. It's always been really though, the Dems should be our new right wing party and a new farther left party like the Green party ought to be the more leftist faction. Dems to me already are neolibs with a neocon leaning. Leftist Populism must be embraced by the neolibs long term. Either way something has to give. Too much wealth to go around (even globally). The greedy old ideologies of constant growth at the expense of the poorest people in the world can't go forever. Growth economics can't go forever either. I have hope. Just go vote because that's what we can do easily as a minimum effort.
Biden 100% needs our energy right now. Trump will turn America into the Fourth Reich.
He might just win your state. Anything can happen.
The neoliberals won't embrace anything unless there's profit in it.
Preferential voting is the only chance of a progressive gaining the power they need to make desperately overdue changes to healthcare, worker rights, housing, cost of living, etc.
A neoliberal government that occasionally panders to progressives is better than a neoliberal government that gets horny at the idea of spitting in poor peoples faces, which is better than fascists.
But we need to do so much more than "not making things worse".
Republicans know this, and push culture war issues to drive certain voters out of their states/area.
Once the hateful boomers die out, the republican party will be finished. They know this and is why they have been focusing on voter suppression so much.
I remember seeing this comment on Digg while people speculated that W would be the last republican president elected for a generation.
To be fair, he didn't win his first election by getting the most votes, and neither did Trump.
The Republicans realized during the Reagan administration that they would soon be unable to win the presidency with a majority of votes and took many steps to undermine the Democratic process. Voter suppression, purges, intimidation, voter ID laws, all of that began with Reagan.
Bush the elder was the last to win a "democratic" victory. If it weren't for 9/11, Bush wouldn't have been able to win his second election either. That fact always blows my mind. Like people rallied around the incompetent fool who managed to ignore warnings and let a terrorist strike happen only to then go on and invade the wrong country multiple times and spend trillions of dollars on nothing.
So far he's the last to win the popular vote (and only for his second term).
It's important to remember that collapse doesn't happen overnight, and then suddenly it does. It takes a great deal of times for cracks to form and a structure to fall, but once it goes, it goes.
They're more powerful and influential than you think - they're not going anywhere. They might change their policies to suit the times (remember Lincoln was a Republican) but the so-called "Grand Old Party" ain't going nowhere unfortunately.
They nearly overrode the vote last time around. They faced no consequences and they’re very close to being in a position to do it again and make lasting changes to seize power forever. Nothing good is guaranteed.
And they’re rewriting education including made up history to ensure that more kids are conservative in future generations. Things aren’t looking good.
Tdont kid yourself,, look at the numbers, Trump is propped up by gen x. The demographic loudest against biden are gunna be around a long time.
There are still plenty of ignorant and angry Gen X and Millenials. I agree that the GOP is finished, and it's only a matter of time. There will always be stupid people to pick up their mantle, however.
But what will replace them? Uni-party doesn't work either (e.g. NYC)
Hopefully the Democrats. No seriously, I hope the Dems become our more conservative party and we get a more progressive party. But… I’m not holding my breath, honestly. Feels like wishful thinking.
A new party will pop up. The Federalist Party died out after Hamilton was shot and also the War of 1812. They fielded their last Presidential candidate in 1816 with 30.9% of the vote.
Then the National Republican Party (different from the current Republican party) evolved out of the Democratic-Republican Party.
Personally, I'd love it if Democrats became the right-most party by staying exactly as they are, and a new party breaks off of them or evolves out to their left.
I hope so but I think my fellow gen x'ers will just become as hateful and bigoted.
The boomer remover was in full swing and then some asshat said we needed a vaccine and you all ate it up.
I'm LGBTQ...AND republican. Although that means something vastly different where I live, haha (I live in a kingdom).
Now if they’d just vote….
To their credit, they are: https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2022/12/12/near-record-high-numbers-of-young-people-voted-during-the-midterms-signaling-a-possible-shift/
1 out of 4 for a midterm election is nothing to sneeze at.
Specifically, an estimated 27% of eligible voters in that age group turned out to the polls in 2022
In 2018, approximately 31% of young people voted
It's not that many, and it's actually down from the last midterm election. Fucking vote.
Golly I remember once on Reddit saying that people should vote and by howdy did a whole bunch of angry people vote me down double digits because, you see, apparently voting doesn't matter and I made people feel sad.
To be fair, I've voted my whole adult life and don't really feel like anything is better off because of it. I will continue to vote for the lesser evil, but I also completely understand why people are frustrated with this system. We just keep voting between a turd sandwich and a giant douche, and it gets old. So it doesn't surprise me when people feel like voting is useless, it feels like it's hopeless by design. We need a new system.
They do vote...they're in areas where their vote doesn't count.
Wow, a news story that makes me think my kid could actually live in a better political climate than me in a few decades. I forgot what this feeling was like.
Bro, I'll tell you the same thing I was told as a young guy in my career. I'm in my 40's now and this was about 20 years ago. An older guy about to retire said something like 'ya know, everyone always says that the younger generation is lazy, or dumb, but from what I noticed you guys are doing it smarter and you'll be better than us.' I kinda thought that, but it was nice to hear.
Now I'll say about 10 years ago, I was recruiting in high school and those kids were leaps and bounds ahead of where my generation was. It was crazy how much they could socialize across cliques and it not matter. Now that I am in my 40's I have some family members in high school, and I just see them being better. I don't know how this will translate into the work force or a fight for a labor reform, but I think we need to be more open to their ideas than our elder generations were to us.
Exactly! Even if it makes us uncomfortable. I can’t relate to gen z, but I’m sure anyone from any other time in history would be unable to relate to me.
That doesn’t matter. It isn’t my world. I’m only here for a time. It’s our world.
Whatever direction society takes has my support as long as they aren’t imposing themselves on other people.
Freedom is beautiful even when I can’t understand or relate the ways people use their freedoms. I’ll vote for freedom no matter how I feel about things or how much I long for the comfortable world of my youth. I don’t matter. Civilization matters. Freedom matters.
Yeah, I think the generation currently entering adulthood is seeing enough bullshit that they might do a great job leading this country, as long as they get a chance.
Why do you think the GQP is panicing. Demographics are changing and they can't rely on old white male voters to shift the tide because they're all dying. Covid put a dent in them too.
That's the kind of optimism we need.
I'm a bit confused by this.
Does this imply that the human race is drastically more sexually fluid than most species when allowed to be without oppression? Or that the culture gen z has grown up in helps cultivate a more fluid preference?
I grew up in the 80s, so I'm trying to understand, but it's tough meshing statements like this with my experiences.
Please don't misunderstand this post as disapproval. Just confusion.
The best explanation I've heard is that it's similar to the stats for left-handed people. Way back in the day, almost no one "identified" as being left-handed. But once the stigma against left-handedness was eliminated, the numbers went up.
So in other words, yes, it's a reflection of LGBTQ+ becoming more acceptable, particularly among Gen Z. There could be other factors, but that's probably the main one.
I think it's mostly that very few of them identify as Republican.
But also, the less stigma around gender expression, the more kids will be open to explore theirs.
That’s not what the data said.
https://www.axios.com/2024/01/23/gen-z-less-religious-more-liberal-lgbtq
Identifying as Republican went from 32% in the Boomer Generation to 21% in Gen Z. Identifying as LGBTQ+ went from 4% with Boomers to 28% with Gen Z.
Both changes are major, but the LGBTQ+ change is massive.
It's a confluence of factors. LGBTQIA+ is sort of a gender/sexuallity/ phenotype physicality solidarity alliance and the actual boundries has grown in scope since the 80's.
Like take for instance asexual people. Asexuallity became a part of the solidarity when people reached out over the internet and and started realizing that there were a lot of people who just don't feel sexual attraction and that there are certain widely accepted forms of social coercion that revolve around pushing people towards sexual attraction. But asexuallity as a part of the LGBTQIA only really became a thing in the early 2000's. Non-binary trans identities are much the same. A lot of people were feeling the way they did about themselves in isolation but they had no frame of reference to think that they were not just the odd person out.
The other half is a society wide re-examination of compulsory heterosexuallity/cis gender hegemony. There are way more people out there who no longer define themselves by who they've chosen to have physical sexual experience with and now a lot more people are more frank about defining themselves by the range of people they are attracted to. Like if the majority of people artificially penalize a bi-person for choosing a same sex relationship a lot of people will just take the easier path and just narrow their choices or keep their liasons with the restricted choice secret and not assume the label.
I before I came out as trans initially figured I didn't count as trans because I both wasn't physically transitioning and my industry is somewhat hostile to trans people so I was very closeted ao I figured the label only really belonged to the people brave enough to live out of the closet... But eventually someone found me and was like "No, it's not aspirational. Even deep in the closet you are still trans."
This combination of destigmatization, solidarity messaging, the inclusion of whole other groups (like intersex people, gender minorities, asexuals) broadening the scope and outreach to the closeted means that more people generally self identify as LGBTQIA or queer.
Animal kingdom wise we're still less observably sexual fluid than other primates. Bisexuality is actually pretty ubiquitous particularly amongst male primates with it actually being the overwhelming norm in some species so chances are we are probably actually haven't seen the curve level off from suppressive stigma.
I believe it's your first option, acceptance for being yourself is the normal instead of a beating from your parents like pre 2000.
I think most species are more fluid than you realize, and humans are just normal. Especially for apes that share a common ancestor with bonobos.
I would assume they are more honestly/aware of their preference.
I am a gay dude, and I have had friends/coworkers who identified as straight say things like "Why does everyone need to label things? I am 100% straight, but sometimes on a road trip, you just wanna suck the other guy off. Both of us are still straight though"
Every time I have heard thigns like this, it's GenX, or older Millennial. Older than that, they don't bring up "queer" things, younger than that, they just say that they are "mostly straight", or "barely-bi", or "up for whatever".
Yepppppp, the kinsey 1s and 2s are really common and there was a time when even 3s and some 4s would identify as straight.
I identify as the +. My sexuality is Extra. Anyone up for some algebra?
drastically more sexually fluid than most species
Have you heard about bonobos? They shag anyone for anything and they're one of our closest relatives. Friends have mutual wanks. Enemies have makeup sex. Threesomes, foursomes. Horny bunch of fuckers.
LGBT as a category has been increased a lot over the years. Asexual or people who don't feel they conform to super strict gender norms are all included as "queer" now. So I imagine it's a combo of things, some people being trendy, some people being freer and not feeling the need to hide, some people who previously didn't identify being included.
Left handedness was persecuted and after it stopped being persecuted there was a massive rise in people who were left handed. But it plateaued and has remained pretty stable since then.
The 11% dip for the GOP makes sense. Their policies are just not in line with what young people value.
That said, the +24% gain in LGBTQ+ identification is fascinating and I would love to know how nature, nurture, taboo, and oppression play impact that. This would be a really cool time to be in university and studying human sexuality and gender.
My (admittedly relatively hot) take as a younger millennial indoctrinated by the 2nd wave feminists (who weren’t huge on the third wave) is that what gender means has shifted. I didn’t experience myself as particularly gendered growing up in the 90s and early 00s and certainly wouldn’t consider it part of my inner essence. I don’t give a shit how strangers refer to me or whether they think I’m a dude or not. I found it to be a slightly annoying category imposed by everyone else. Something I needed to understand because it impacted how I was received by others, but not something that was core to my self-understanding. In school I studied the humanities which reaffirmed to me that gender was an annoying external category that put people in boxes—we didn’t want gay female CEOs, we wanted to get rid of gender altogether.
I think gen Z actually has a similar thought but instead of doing away with the gender categories many have chosen, on an individual level, to make them their own a bit more in line with 3rd wave ‘boss removed’ vibes. This still undermines the oppressive nature of the gender roles because it it kind of divorces gender from the societal gender role.
Well said
LGBTQ came out if the closet and GOP went in.
We are indeed more sexually fluid than most species and given it's "most" and not "all", this isn't unprecedented. It's also not a new phenomena, in Ancient Greek and early-mid Ancient Roman societies queerness was quite common. In fact homosexuality was so prevalent that that the Romans didn't even have a word for heterosexual/homosexual; instead one was either dominant or submissive (e.g. giving or receiving) with the assumption being that most were bisexual and would take partners as they saw fit.
There would still be a stigma around being the receptive partner. The idea being that a higher status man can penetrate lower status people (younger men, slaves, women). A high status man being penetrated by a lower status person would be worthy of mockery.
Samurai were gay as fuck though. Sengoku period you could even be romantic with other dudes, women are for making babies. I have an 1940s (iirc) English translation of a book of 16th century gay samurai love stories - the guy who wrote the forward thought it was because “mongoloid” people look more feminine 😅
Putting sexuality in such a defined state is relatively new in human culture. So most often no one would have the worlds to talk about it or even know it could be classified differently.
fingers crossed it means there's five gen z Republicans and they don't know how to vote
Our closest related species gets it on so much in so many ways it is one STD away from extinction. It might be that we really are like this. Maybe the norm for humans was to have random homosexual and hetrosexual orgies everywhere. It was only because it became important to know who the daddy was that things changed? Or the sampling of the survey wasn't great. You know groundbreaking or meaningless.
I think about cultures that have a focus on same sex sexual contact- most people, if they had been born there would probably participate. If they’re born somewhere where it’s forbidden, most people don’t engage in it.
Some people are hardwired about it in either direction, but the majority are more flexible
Some of it is a rejection of previous values - toxic masculinity and toxic femininity. Some of it may be standing with their peers even if it does not apply directly to them. Some of it is trendiness. Some doctors are even predatory, seeking to sell their extraordinarily expensive surgeries for tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Older, established trans communities in Europe even are shocked at how young we allow surgeries in the USA, before someone knows who they truly are.
Mainly we just have an extremist society here, egged on in large part by our predatory clickbait media that always has to come up with something to say sell, so it ignores the >80% in the middle and focuses exclusively on the flashiest content it can find. And then kids hear that and wonder how they fit into it - ofc they never see the "middle ground", b/c in the media it just isn't there.
Take a look also at how shockingly high rates of suicide and opioid and other drug use are. The younger generations are desperate to become anything else besides what boomers are telling them they must be: literal slaves to the corporate empires.:-(
sees headine oh, that's good news!
sees source oh it's gay fox, which means it's probably sensationalized to the point that the headline is a lie, because that's what they do over there.
You had me at gay fox.
Actually the source is Axios, and the headline is not wrong even if it is from an obviously biased organization. You can see the original coverage of it here:
https://www.axios.com/2024/01/23/gen-z-less-religious-more-liberal-lgbtq
honestly it would make sense and i didn't doubt it until I saw it was on PinkNews - it's not about bias, it's about their headlines too often being the exact opposite of the real story (when there even is a real story; much of their content is sensationalized nothings). Just absolute crap reporting. Thanks for providing the original source.
I've been on the internet too long, because I assumed you meant it was a furry site.
As it should be. FUCKING VOTE! And remember, by not voting for Biden, you are voting for Trump whether or not you actually cast a vote. ALL of the Trump supporters WILL show up on the day.
Either way you're voting for a Palestinian genocide and the continuation of neoliberal imperialism.
Edit: the future is bleak either way, Biden has explicitly shown support for the continuation of support for Israel as well as the bombing campaign in Yemen and Syria. All this is to say that there is genuinely nothing we can do to help the middle east in this election.
But sure, we can get a better minimum wage or whatever.
No. You don't get to tell me that I have to vote for Biden when he's not doing anything to earn my vote. He's allowing Israel to carry out a genocide. So he's not actually less evil than Trump. You're just upset because Trump's shitty policies will impact you more than Biden's shitty policies. Biden has the lower approval ratings than Trump did at this point. He has not earned a second term.
How about the Dems run a candidate who isn't dog shit? I vote for Dems as a form of harm reduction, but they aren't reducing harm anymore. So what's in it for me? Dems haven't not done anything about the supreme court, student loans, or threats to democracy and they are largely supporting the actions of Israel. If I'm right, and this is a genocide (I am), then voting for anyone who supports it would be an evil act. They're going to have to make some changes if they want to earn the votes of people who don't want to see a genocide carried out on our watch with our bombs.
That said, it would be a real problem if Trump won. So if that happens, I hope you'll be willing to place the blame where it belongs: with the Democrats. They are the ones doing nothing to earn our votes. Biden isn't even campaigning.
Of course nobody can tell you who you have to vote for.
But regardless of your choice and your reasons, the math of the votes in our stupid system does mean that voting for anybody but Biden, including voting for nobody, helps Trump or his Republican replacement.
If you don’t care about that, that’s fine. Some might argue that you SHOULD care, but that’s a different conversation. The voting decision is a private one that’s yours alone, but understanding how the choices affect the outcome is good for everybody.
okay, then welcome your next dictator Donald Trump and all that implies (Gilead like conditions, rescending civil and gender rights, requiring Christian worship or prison/execution, an end to all journalism and only Trumpian little red books where you pledge allegiance to him every day or get reported to the police)
That said, it would be a real problem if Trump won. So if that happens, I hope you’ll be willing to place the blame where it belongs: with the Democrats. They are the ones doing nothing to earn our votes. Biden isn’t even campaigning.
Biden is governing. He's doing the job he was elected to do. Perhaps that's enough to earn some votes? Or are votes only earnt by rallies and advertisements?
In any case, it's completely silly to blame the Democrats for losing if you don't vote for them yourself. If you prefer Democrats over republicans, then you have to vote for them. Even though they aren't perfect. If you don't vote, then it is totally unreasonable to blame anyone else for getting an undesired outcome. Not voting implies that you have no preference.
(And yet again, this is another case where 'ranked choice' voting / preferential / instant-runoff would make this whole situation a lot easier. USA could really use some serious electoral reform.)
I think it's pretty obvious where the blame would be if Trump wins: the stupid folks who refused to vote out of principle. If it was possible that neither could win then your strategy could make sense. But there are ONLY 2 OUTCOMES. Requiring dems to earn your vote is unfortunately meaningless when the only other option is FAR WORSE YOU CRETIN OF INANE CONCLUSIONS.
Man it's crazy how these people think they can instill some false duty onto any leftist to "do the right thing" without actually weighing each of the choices carefully. They just see a D next to someone's name and think they must be the good guy, regardless of what they say.
Did we all forget about the kids in cages on the border? Or the lack of free healthcare/college? Did we forget about the union busting? Biden is not a good guy, he's just barely better than Trump. He's certainly better at hiding the heinous shit from everyone.
But yeah man, were all bad people and unamerican for wanting a better choice and hating our hand I guess?
Not buying it. Probably just scared of the well deserved ridicule received if they identify as Republican. We'll see how the vote goes.
Shy Tory factor. It hasn't usually been common to see in US polling.
You're dubious because why? Do you think there were only two options? Do you identify as republican or LGBTQ?
What they're saying is it's more embarrassing for a teen to come out as republican than LGBTQ+ (obviously depends on the area)
This is actually quite interesting. For me, answering a questionaire like this is frustrating because the true answer is much more nuanced than what the given options are and I feel like I know what they're trying to ask but my honest answer is going to give them confusing results from which they're going to pull incorrect conclusions from.
For example: Politically I'm slightly right from centre but I've always voted left. I'm also non-straight but I don't identify as LGBTQ (I literally had to look up the correct way to type that)
I'm also non-straight but I don't identify as LGBTQ (I literally had to look up the correct way to type that)
If you identify as non-straight then you're identifying as LGBTQ. Don't get hung up on the specific letters in the acronym, that sort of changes from year to year. You can pretty much sum it up to literally mean anything that isn't straight which is what you said you are.
non-straight but I don’t identify as LGBTQ
This is pretty much what the "Q" part is. Queer in this context refers to not conforming to standard roles in some way or another.
Weird that your response got downvoted, but that seems to be how things go on here. Weird, but not surprising. If you're slightly right from center, you sound like a centrist Dem.
ThankFuckingGod.jpg
What a glorious headline!
This shows that:
If you identify as LGBTQ, you are less likely to vote Republican.
It also shows if you have more than two brain cells fighting for third place, you aren't going to vote Republican.
Why would anyone identify by their political ideology? Or worse, by a single party??
"Do you like Football. I'm a Packers fan."
"Why would anybody identify by their favorite sports team!?"
"... I take it you don't like sports"
Tribalism makes sense when the other tribe wants to destroy you.
Because we may have separated from the other great apes several million years ago, but the great ape predilection for tribalism sure hasn't separated from us
In some states, you have to identify to a party to vote for someone in the primary. I was registered independent then had to switch to vote in the primaries
Fuck yeah.
The West has fallen /s
A storm is coming...
Call Gerard Butler quick!
Doesn't matter unless they actually vote.
the american dream
Maybe they're more likely to take online polls. Were the participants invited to take the poll, or just posted somewhere and left up for people to discover and take if so inclined? I don't care about these results, just pointing out that usually these things aren't terribly reliable. Maybe this poll of some 6,000 perfectly represents Gen Z. I have no idea.
Is there an agenda to push, or is it less of a stigma and a sign of progress? Are the chemical products in our environment changing our hormones, or are young impressionable people following a trend? Will this trend continue, and what is the desired peak since this is apparently something to celebrate. Would we be celebrating if biologists determined that homosexuality has increased 64% among giraffes, or would it just be considered data to be viewed with no bias? Are mushrooms really safe to microdose, and what is the recommended dose SWIM should be taking?
The 28% identifying as LGBTQ+ definitely seems like an indication that the sampling might be off. That could be true, but it seems much, much higher than previous estimates.
A lot more people identify with LGBT+ than there used to be, because it's a very open label and people are more able to identify with it in accepting environments.
There's a hell of a lot more people now who are... pretty much cishet, but maybe have some 5% attraction to the same sex, or they're attracted to trans/nonbinary people, and so they consider themselves bisexual or pansexual, etc. when 5-10 years ago they probably wouldn't have.
The specific number starts to mean a lot less when we remember the attitude of those people answering "do you identify with LGBT" has quickly shifted from "oh, well I'm definitely not gay!!" to "uhh sure, why not?" in a very short amount of time. I'm of the opinion this doesn't reflect a change in our baseline behavior and is... not even consistently measurable given the diverging, shifting cultural context.
Maybe they thought the + included allies?
It's weird. As a millennial in college I would always hear the grief from gen x hearing me complain and respond with "well get out an vote then." I guess it is now my turn to tell that to a younger generation, watch them get upset, and then eat my popcorn in 20 years while I watch gen lecture the next generation on the importance of voting.
But I do think this is alarming:
Before the 2020 election, 57% of Americans ages 18 to 29 said they were planning to vote. The number is now 49%, a figure many analysts say reflects disinterest in the likelihood of a Biden-Trump rematch.
I think the US would be a better place if we had compulsory voting laws similar to Australia that gets like 90 percent turnout. As a citizen of a democracy I think voting should be an obligation. And as a member of a democracy I wish the majority vote actually was a number that is a majority of Americans, not just Americans that voted, so we could have more faith in the outcomes actually reflecting the will of the people.
Jokes on them, log cabins are affordable these days.
You can say the same thing as ADHD, Crohn's disease or being Hispanic.
The gay agenda
But the two aren’t mutually exclusive? This doesn’t tell anybody anything because one thing relates to politics and the other thing relates to sexuality and gender identity.
Okay, but the bit that relates to politics relates to a deeply and aggressively homophobic and transphobic political party, so...
Right, but there are some people who are both gay (satisfying the LGTBQ bit) and Republican, which is very strange to say within the same sentence in today’s age. Only reason I say that is because I have known a couple of these kinds of people and it was… interesting, to say in the least.
And yet, there is very little overlap
But the GOP keeps trying to police gender and identity.
It is very common for young people on every generation to be part of the left-wing movements. But I think they are focalizing in a superficial problem, instead to find solutions to more critic challenges. Do non-straight people suffer discrimination, etc?. Yes, but there are other more dramatic problems such as: homelessness, fentanyl epidemics, public health, etc.
Good thing you can have the right economic politics at the same time as being queer. Young people identifying as LGBT does nothing to detract from their other left-wing views.
I agree with you.
Common but not universal - as recently as the 80s young people tended to be more conservative than average. The giant age gap we see today with young people way to the left of the rest of society is pretty unusual.
Yeah, but it was a regional problem. In the rest of the Americas there were a lot of left side revolutions, after military dictatorships in the 70s.
cool post, but political party affiliation means nothing when both sides of the "political spectrum" are actually the same side which are in the pockets of the same individuals who wish to putrify society, the results of which lead to this exact news article :)
The similarities between sexual freedom and religious freedom is striking. Sexual attraction and identification is important to be free and open, just like religious freedom. Free from persecution, equal rights and oppertunities.
But I don't like when people forcefully spread their belief system and their values to others. Let it be organic, don't try to force change. People are free to pursue their lifestyle and i'm free to pursue mine. In today's society, it feels like the ownerclass are running pro lgbtq advertisements. Is it another divide and conquer technique? The whole thing feels forced...
Please don't downvote just because it's an unpopular opinion, rather lets discuss the issue 👍
it feels like the ownerclass are running pro lgbtq advertisements
Corporations make inclusive advertisement when it makes them more money than not doing so. You can easily see the same movie studios making fairly different advertisement in EU/USA than in China/Saudi Arabia. This is virtue signalling, but I'm fine with it, because when good values get virtue signalled in public, the opposite values are less likely to transmit. They don't have good intentions, but good results come out of it.
There are also less common cases where they purposefully make over the top stunts because it will make far right nutjobs angry, which they count as free advertisement.
"This is virtue signalling, but I'm fine with it, because when good values get virtue signalled in public, the opposite values are less likely to transmit. They don't have good intentions, but good results come out of it."
US Supreme Court has upheld the ban on religious ads, and my initial comparison between religion and sexual freedom runs deeper. They are very comparable. Both have been persecuted heavily up in history. A big difference is what I posted in a different sub-thread
"Even though I'm an atheist or agnostic, not really sure. Religion is different because they are on both the giving and the recieving end of persecution.They use religion as a base for their persecution of other people of a different religion (or sexual identification, sexual attraction, even something as trivial as dress code). Expressions that are clearly protected within the law."
Religion within ads are not protected by freedom of expression (acc. to US SC), and a sexual expression as an ad has not, to my knowledge, been challenged in the courts (yet). Correct me if I'm wrong.
"There are also less common cases where they purposefully make over the top stunts because it will make far right nutjobs angry, which they count as free advertisement."
It's like burning books or flags, it's a protected form of expression. Even though these actions are very divisive. I will fight for even these, and the ones you put as examples' right to express themselves. It's very much like Noam Chomsky says: "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all."
so you like creating (and when corps create) echo-chambers when they fit the concepts that you want? with all respect possible to give, your logic is therefore not sound
Talking in broad strokes all about balancing "freedom of identity/attraction" and "religious freedom" makes for a decent-sounding empathetic viewpoint prioritizing individual liberty. I understand where this is coming from, I don't disagree myself, but then again who would?
And that's why we have to get into the specifics of "forcefully spreading their belief system and values to others" because that's what happens to queer people as status quo. We're legally and socially discriminated out of a lot of aspects of public life and often carry deep trauma from wrath and abuse incurred on the way. Conversion therapy is still legal in many places for fucks sake! The hell is that if not forcefully spreading a belief system?
Often times, the term this is justified under is "freedom of religion" - but really it's freedom to control and abuse others due to religious justification. The two freedoms are not equatable, therefore the balanced center between is not a neutral position.
Corporate pride advertising is super forced and very few queer people are actually on board with it. The term is "rainbow capitalism" and it's pretty derisive. Unfortunately that's all of what some people know of us - they don't know us as people, as communities, just like them; they know us as a rainbow flag on a TV screen and as a Tucker/LWT/[whoever's got opinions about us today] talk show segment, and so that's all they think we are. Nobody likes this, queer people least of all.
"Conversion therapy is still legal in many places for fucks sake!" This is a blatant form of persecution and everyone shoult protest and shut shit down until it's fixed. Conversion therapy is, in my book, not protected by religious freedom, at all.
This remids me about the meme, two bomb-planes D and R, were one just bombs, and the other bombs too, but with rainbow colors, blm and every other "current" coopted flag.
You take an awful coropration and put lipstick on it to make it better...
I try to take a few steps back and, to me, it looks like the exploitation-class has coopted this issue, enlarging it, to make it more divisive than it actually is. I would think most people have a "can we not just live our lives in peace" attitude, whether you are lgbtq, straight, religious or atheist.
Please don't downvote just because it's an unpopular opinion, rather lets discuss the issue 👍
No. 👎
Except one thing is real and the other is not. There is no god, but there is definitely sexual attraction in forms beyond heterosexuality and gender expressions outside the heteronormative form. So there is a difference between spreading misinformation in form of religion or quite useful information on gender and sex.
The way I see it, Religion and Gender are both social constructs that exist to make life easier for people who need it (or, at least that’s what the original purpose of religion was).
There’s no definite, set-in-stone proof for either being true (as far as I know, do correct me if I’m wrong), but as long as they make someone’s life better without making others’ life worse, I see no issue with either existing.
It’s not really a fair comparison to say “God doesn’t exist, LGBTQ people do”, when one is a concept and the other is people. Religious people do exist, and the concept of “Gender” is just as vague and undefined as the one for “God”.
The reason why LGBTQ people are (rightfully) seen better than religious people is that they don’t force people to “join” them and don’t treat different people as the scum of the earth.