Gen Z might be the MAGA movement’s undoing - eviltoast

Four-times-indicted former president Donald Trump has been successfully selling white Christian nostalgia, racism and xenophobia to his base. However, the Public Religion Research Institute’s massive poll of 6,616 participants suggests that what works with his base might pose an insurmountable problem with Gen Z teens and Gen Z adults (who are younger than 25).

Demographically, this cohort of voters bears little resemblance to Trump’s older, whiter, more religious followers. “In addition to being the most racially and ethnically diverse generation in our nation’s history, Gen Z adults also identify as LGBTQ at much higher rates than older Americans,” the PRRI poll found. “Like millennials, Gen Zers are also less likely than older generations to affiliate with an established religion.”

Those characteristics suggest Gen Z will favor a progressive message that incorporates diversity and opposes government imposition of religious views. Indeed, “Gen Z adults (21%) are less likely than all generational groups except millennials (21%) to identify as Republican.” Though 36 percent of Gen Z adults identify as Democrats, their teenage counterparts are more likely to be independents (51 percent) than older generations.

  • conorm@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    10 months ago

    i encourage learning, go somewhere quiet and away from the lies of society, bring a method of written recording of your choice, and note all the things that come to your mind, focus on the area in question that you wish to conceptualise information about, and it may come to you, more efficiently and clearly when you know what you are doing well

      • conorm@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        10 months ago

        the structure of the atom pales in comparison to relevant information about the world in any case, plus if you paid attention in science class, you’d know that the atom was theorised before it was proven, only goes to show you that you may conceptualise the natural law without necessarily laying eyes upon it :)

        • Ep1cFac3pa1m@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          The atom was hypothesized before it was theorized, and do all hypotheses turn out to be correct? Also, the atomic model explains pretty much all of chemistry. Seems pretty relevant to the way the world works.

          • conorm@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            10 months ago

            damn right it was hypothesised and theorised, both of which happened prior to the viewing of an atom, it’s because the natural world is observable through conceptualisation

            • Ep1cFac3pa1m@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              As is fantasy. You’re advocating for the scientific method to stop at hypothesis, and claiming that’s a legitimate method for finding truth. I can’t imagine being that incurious about the world around me.

              • conorm@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                9
                ·
                10 months ago

                im stating that the hypothesis stage can be the natural truth because the natural truth is observable, you must understand that the vast majority of inventions have followed their hypothesis, they all were conceptualised in this manner and this is the reason why the average layman cannot invent anything nowadays

                • Ep1cFac3pa1m@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  And how do you determine whether or not your hypothesis is in accordance with natural law? Our current understanding of the atom wasn’t the only hypothesized model. It required further observation to improve our understanding. The natural truth is observable, but shallow observations without further analysis lead to flawed conclusions.

                  • conorm@feddit.uk
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    7
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    it was invented in the mind before it was observed, this is because the natural world has methods of teaching to people, do you not understand?