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.

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

    “Natural law” exists outside the realm of religion, and anyone who claims to know the “truth” has closed themself off to new information. The truth is observable, but what’s observable today wasn’t observable 200 years ago, and what’s observable 200 years ago likely isn’t observable today.

    • conorm@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      10 个月前

      natural law is inherently the religion of the world, and it is the truth, you don’t need microscopes or technology to observe the truth of the world, just your mind, experience, a want to logically comprehend the world, it all would come to you provided you are wise in those capacities

      • Ep1cFac3pa1m@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 个月前

        I’m curious how we would come to understand natural laws of atomic structure using logic and experience without microscopes. Discouragement of learning doesn’t normally lead to any “truth” that inconveniences the ruling class.

        • conorm@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          10 个月前

          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 个月前

              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 个月前

                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 个月前

                  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 个月前

                    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.