Comments 1 - 40 of 48 Next » Last » Search these comments
Young people are often assumed to be progressive, especially when it comes to gay rights. But a new study reveals that acceptance of the LGBTQ community by adults 18 to 34 is falling.
A new Harris Poll commissioned by GLAAD found that 36 percent of respondents in that demographic reported they'd be "very" or "somewhat" uncomfortable learning a family member was LGBTQ. That's up from 29 percent who said the same in 2018.
According to the 2019 Accelerating Acceptance Index, 39 percent would be unsettled by their child learning about LGBTQ history in school, compared to just 30 percent in 2018. And finding out their doctor was LGBTQ made a third (34 percent) uncomfortable—an uptick from 27 percent last year.
"The younger generation has traditionally been thought of as a beacon of progressive values," GLAAD President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis said in a statement. "We have taken that idea for granted."
Conducted online earlier this year, the poll quizzed 1,970 U.S. adults on their comfort level with seven theoretical situations: Learning a family member is LGBTQ, learning their doctor is LGBTQ, having LGBTQ members at their place of worship, seeing a LGBTQ co-worker's wedding picture, having their child placed in a class with a LGBTQ teacher, seeing a same-sex couple holding hands, and learning their child was learning LGBTQ history in school.
The number of young Americans who were comfortable across all seven situations dropped from 53 percent in 2018 to 45 percent this year, the second consecutive dip for the age bracket.
Some 43 percent of young males said they'd be uncomfortable learning a family member is LGBTQ (up from 32% in 2018). But, GLAAD reports, the more significant erosion is being driven by women 18-34, whose overall comfort levels fell from 64 percent last year to just 52 percent in 2019.
HonkpilledMaster saysNaturally - leftists have fewer kids.
Get woke, go extinct!
We can only hope. The biggest issue are minorities and the poor out breeding everyone else.
There are not many ideas that are more harmful to society than the ones the LBGTQ crowd pushes. Even feminism isn’t as bad as trans activism or gay proselytizing. Off the top of my head, the only worse ideas are normalizing pedophilia and Satanism.
With a degree in women studies, maybe he understands women...
Just trying to be charitable.
But, this being said, the younger generations are absolutely correct: socialism is the future of the world.
Too many useless people can't be dealt with unless massive redistribution takes place.
And this will become worse as productivity increases.
Bread and circus until barbarians show up.
Every moral instinct that says the contrary will have to be renegotiated.
They are and will keep realizing that there's no money in socialism and everyone will be worse off.
mell saysThey are and will keep realizing that there's no money in socialism and everyone will be worse off.
You don't understand. This is not a choice. Capitalism is circling the drain. It can't work if more and more people are useless.
Negative yields.
We have poor people, but we could literally produce everything they need and more. But we won't because they are useless and will be more and more useless as time goes by. Until socialism takes over.
There is no solution within the bounds of capitalism. If not the Chinese, the robots will take over. And no one can claim they worked hard to produce what robots did. Then you give it to people for free. And that's that.
The useful people will eventually abandon the useless, there is a choice.
#1 Manufacturing has been removed from the consuming areas.
#2 Robots/AI are not coming anytime soon.
Androids picking lettuce in California is both impossible
We ARE on the verge of a space revolution giving humanity virtually unlimited resources
#5. The future is going to be utterly decentralized.
Capitalism is failing to provide the basics for the population at large because a fraction of the population, given the right tools, CAN do everything that needs to be done. The rest is free to starve.
Agriculture is already done to a tiny percent of the population, and it's about to get worse as robots will soon run entire farms from A to Z. If not lettuce then wheat.
The farmer will be down to helping in rare situations when something breaks down.
mell saysThe useful people will eventually abandon the useless, there is a choice.
You're talking like useless people are a fringe. They will be the majority and be in the street asking for food.
You reason like if given a low enough wage and sufficient effort people could still be useful. This is still true now, but less and less true everyday.
Capitalism is failing to provide the basics for the population at large because a fraction of the population, given the right tools, CAN do everything that needs to be done. The rest is free to starve.
The farmer will be down to helping in rare situations when something breaks down.
Right now we can't even go to the moon. We can't have a small group living there.
This is what it would take: a giant step back from the current world which is optimized for efficiency, and deliberately duplicating efforts and focusing on non-efficient but higher quality solutions.
we won't because they are useless and will be more and more useless as time goes by. Until socialism takes over.
Predictions of technology eliminated employment go back to the 18th Century and the quasi-apocryphal Luddites who may or may not have actually been extant. I recall concerns about mass employment going back to the Greco-Roman era.
How will socialism make them less useless?
Useless people tend to rebel against society
Useless people do rebel unless they're fed and entertained doing nothing.
When they are, that's socialism.
It can't be the Chinese or the Mexicans, otherwise why isn't their consumption generating enough income and thus enough consumption so things align?
Why are wages barely growing when we have 3% unemployment?
If we don't have an employment and income problem why do we need to go in debt every year,
just to keep the economy growing slightly. The gov is about $1 trillion in the red, but the economy barely churns.
It can't be the Chinese or the Mexicans, otherwise why isn't their consumption generating enough income and thus enough consumption so things align?
Why are interest rates negative in so many places?
Why are wages barely growing when we have 3% unemployment?
The money simply isn't distributed, isn't circulating, isn't spent, isn't generating enough end demand. Why is that?
China keeps it's currency artifically cheap, retarding the buying power of Chinese consumersHonkpilledMaster says
Illegal Immigration and too many H1Bs.
If we have such an employment crisis, why is allowing millions of under-the-table workers (who aren't counted in stats)
That's "Multiple Human locations beyond the Earth, massively increasing the likelihood of species survival", then space travel is the best bet for the money.
Or we could pay artists, or mothers of newborns, or artisans producing high quality products but can't make a living out of it, or farmers producing organic vegetables, or invest massively in solar/wind, or rebuilt new infrastructures, or basic healthcare coverage for all, etc...
Being more inefficient is easy and sometime good on a human level.
But the incentives won't be provided by the markets.
Comments 1 - 40 of 48 Next » Last » Search these comments
Considering the very oldest Zoomer just graduated college, that the largest Milennial cohort by age is about 29, and the non-stop Socialist/SJW propaganda aimed at kids these days, this is really good news.
It's great when kids rebel against Socialist authorities in Education.
Oh, and I've been nattering on about who has kids? Studies - if you can believe them - have Gen Z going to Church more often than either Milennials or Gen X.
Naturally - leftists have fewer kids.