208
If you think Project 2025 is scary, take a look at Donald Trump's Agenda 47
(www.advocate.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Jul 2024
208 points (97.3% liked)
politics
18894 readers
3338 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
They're not right because they numbers didn't go up from conversion. They went up because people could admit who they are without fear of violence. The true number didn't change, we just became capable of getting a more accurate count.
Right, I think this is the point that the above comment is making as well. That the numbers of publicly/out gay people went up because of a more accurate count thanks to a less hostile sociopolitical climate.
I think the point that's being confused in that comment is that the fear mongering was obviously bullshit, and modern bigots pointing at any increase in LGBTQ+ identification nowadays may continue to use those statistics as justification for anti-LGBTQ+ platforms. Instead of engaging that argument that the hate mongers have always known is in bad faith, it's much more to the point nowadays to make them explain what they think is wrong with increased LQBTQ+ identification, or as the original comment put it, "Yeah, and?"
Thats exactly what I just said though....
No, it isn't. You responded to a comment about conversion and are making it sound like conversion was successful.
I think they were saying conversion may seem successful to some because of how the numbers look.
No, I said thats how the census views it. All the census is, is a collection of numbers without context. 1990s, not that many recorded gay people. Key word RECORDED. Today, much higher. Therefore the census sees a jump. The conservatives tried playing this off as a scare tactic, as "THERES MORE GAY PEOPLE IN THE WORLD!!!! AHHHHH!!!!"
And I said my response was
I understood you. I don’t think it’s you, there are many who were never trained in deductive reasoning. It sucks because it limits effective communication.