this post was submitted on 17 May 2024
73 points (90.1% liked)

politics

19077 readers
3563 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Sanctus@lemmy.world 32 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Not even 8% and the conservatives lose their god damn mind over anything rainbow. I'm sure the actual number of LGBTQ+ people is higher. Its just still too dangerous coming out. As long as everyone I'd a consenting adult it shouldn't matter who you love.

[–] Mongostein@lemmy.ca 25 points 5 months ago (1 children)

No doubt. I’m glad these numbers are rising.

The same thing happened when we stopped beating kids for being left handed.

There is no “gay agenda,” just more and more of your countrymen feeling the same freedom to exist that conservatives claim to hold so dear.

-signed some straight dude

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

I have it on good authority that there is a Gay Agenda. It's always just been a Trapper Keeper. They are so organized, after all....

[–] Mongostein@lemmy.ca 3 points 5 months ago

lol, all the gay people I know are super unorganized (I say with love.)

The percentage of gay people organized enough to subjugate a population is so small that you’d end up with a commune at worst. There’s much more to worry about from the Catholic Church. You know, those guys with a history of that kind of stuff.

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 26 points 5 months ago (2 children)
[–] MagicShel@programming.dev 15 points 5 months ago

I drank Bud light and grew boobs! Always thought it would be sexier to have boobs, if I'm honest. They look so good on women...

[–] SacredHeartAttack@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Either that or the chem trails.

[–] djsoren19@yiffit.net 16 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Sorry this can't be right, 1 in 5 of Gen Z adults? That's an incredible increase, more than double the average across all generations. Could we actually one day reach 20% LGBTQ identification?

Coming from a world where I stayed in the closet for years because I was terrified about violent repercussions, the number just sounds completely unreal to me.

[–] Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee 11 points 5 months ago

It sounds like the biggest growth is in bisexual identification, up to 30% of Gen Z women.

My uneducated guess is that older adults with bisexual tendencies had the option of just convincing themselves they were straight, while gay older adults didn’t really have that option.

[–] tiefling@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 5 months ago

That number sounds about right based on my own social circles (though for context I'm a millennial myself)

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee -1 points 5 months ago

How many are just on Grindr for “friends” though ;)

[–] WalrusDragonOnABike@lemmy.today -3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Hopefully gen Ω can acheive 100%+ identification as LGBTQIA+.

Edit: obligatory xkcd

[–] AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Doesn't the "+" include everyone already?

[–] WalrusDragonOnABike@lemmy.today 3 points 5 months ago

If it did, wouldn't it always be 100%?

[–] metaStatic@kbin.social -4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

the rainbow already included everyone

adding letters is EXPLICITLY exclusionary

[–] wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

That's... not how that works