220
submitted 2 years ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] kibiz0r@midwest.social 124 points 2 years ago

The specific question was “I support equal rights for the LGBTQ community”

  • 2021: 79% said yes
  • 2022: 81%
  • 2023: 84%
  • 2024: 80%

Seems early to assume an actual decline. 2023 might have been weird. Election years might be weird. Who knows? But it is worth keeping an eye on.

Side note: If your chart has two years, and an assigned color for each year… Don’t use both colors for both bars.

If not for this specific case being tied to some text about going down from 84 to 80, I would not have been able to understand the rest of the charts.

[-] kate@lemmy.uhhoh.com 37 points 2 years ago
[-] OutlierBlue@lemmy.ca 13 points 2 years ago

I'm so glad no one on my family is the kind of psychopath to eat pie like that.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 21 points 2 years ago

That feels like a 'within the margin of error' issue.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] charade_you_are@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 years ago

So pretty much the same give or take a couple of people

[-] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 45 points 2 years ago
[-] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 32 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I think lgbt+ or lgbtq+ is fine. Things got weird at lgbtqia+ then at lgbtqia2s+, it got too long for me. This is the sort of thing that makes even centrists cringe at and republicans make alphabet jokes at.

[-] ripcord@lemmy.world 22 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I agree. At a certain point attempting to be too specific is counterproductive, even if the intent is positive.

Most people I know covered under these labels, including many people very close to me, also think it got silly. The + is there for a reason. Heck, so is the Q.

[-] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 5 points 2 years ago

Yeah I thought the q is a +. Didn't understand the need for another + but whatevers.

[-] Duamerthrax@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago

I don't see the extra long ones outside of small communities and whenever some right wing talking head wants to complain about "clown world" shit for clickbait. No one cares as long as you treat people with dignity.

[-] pyre@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

i never understand why people try to add inclusivity to things that are inclusive.

the pride flag is the rainbow. you know, the thing that's associated with representing the entire spectrum. adding triangles and circles and extra colors is redundant. you can just say it represents all these things too because it's the fucking rainbow.

same with lgbtq+. like, q already represents all of it kind of, but ok we also have a + to mean everything else. what's the point of adding more...

i know it feels like the letters are more important than what's bundled into the + sign but the answer to that isn't adding a new letter for every single person, it's to find a better, more inclusive shorthand that means all of it. as a cishet obviously I'm not going to declare anything unilaterally but personally i think something like GSNC (gender and sexuality non-conforming) would be inclusive of all of it and wouldn't need expansion.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (32 replies)
[-] Lemminary@lemmy.world 14 points 2 years ago

Doing my part, I've been sucking D overtime 😔

[-] ickplant@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

Thank you for your sacrifice 🫡

[-] Lemminary@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago

You're welcome. You're also next, big boy.

[-] ickplant@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

All I got to offer is a pussy, so unless you are bi…

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] zeekaran@sopuli.xyz 28 points 2 years ago

The amount of hostility in here is nuts.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] ravhall@discuss.online 27 points 2 years ago

Polls are stupid. Did the people who took the poll last year change their mind or did they just get another random group of people who happened to be 4% different.

Also, as a gay man, I’d love to click on an article about LGBT issues and not see a drag queen. The only Queen I’m interested in plays rock music.

[-] stoneparchment@possumpat.io 20 points 2 years ago

GLAAD's Accelerating Acceptance is the most comprehensive survey we have to determine changes in public sentiment about LGBTQ+ acceptance. It's literally what I cite when writing research papers about queer issues. The difference is absolutely believable, and they validated the results with sampling bias in mind. There is no reason for you to cast doubt on the result like this, and it reads as disengenuine for you to do so.

Also, you don't get to decide what queer lives deserve to be in articles about LGBTQ+ people. Thankfully.

[-] Floodedwomb@lemmy.world 37 points 2 years ago

He was a dick about it, but it does get tiring to see mostly femmes and drag queens representing gay men in mainstream media. There are so many of us that aren't femme or catty or flamboyant. Those things are fine but it starts to feel like a stereotype instead of true representation.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago

I'm cishet but it is so refreshing to see the occasional gay male characters on TV that are not stereotypical in any way.

I didn't love Star Trek: Discovery, but I did love that the gay couple were just a couple of guys who loved each other and were married.

[-] ripcord@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Oh man, I agree that it's super refreshing when writers add "minority" characters whose character doesn't revolve around that one part of their personality.

A lawyer who happens to be gay. And a father. And raised by a single mom, etc. He's not "the gay guy", just a character who happens to be gay as much as another character is straight.

An engineer who happens to be black. And is really into origami, etc. His character isn't constantly pointing out "white guys" and "black guys". He's just a dude from St. Louis.

It feels much more progressive and realistic and respectful to me.

In the 90s+ it was good to start seeing a lot more diverse characters, but too many have been one-dimensional, sometimes to the point of being props.

[-] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

Those things are fine but it starts to feel like a stereotype instead of true representation.

Popular media doesn't care about 'true representation'. It cares about getting clicks, readers and subscribers. Of course the media tends to sell stereotypes and fads.

Drag queens represent a general idea of 'gay' because they're flamboyant, and that sells, and the media doesn't have to care that this skews the idea of who gay people are. Furthermore, bigots won't learn that gay men can represent majority gender norms easily if they don't want to, because bigotry is not based on reality. I can imagine bigots generally reacting to pictures of gay dudes who look much like they do with "but they're not gay, they don't have nail polish".

[-] ravhall@discuss.online 3 points 2 years ago

I was hardly a dick. But it does get tiresome to never see people I can identify with in my own community. It just seems pretty exclusive.

[-] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 2 years ago

Also, you don't get to decide what queer lives deserve to be in articles about LGBTQ+ people.

I think it's that the media wants a picture that 'looks gay'. It's pretty unpleasant stereotyping, but it's not the fault of drag queens as individuals or as a group that the media latches onto their flamboyant femininity in order to show a picture of 'gay'.

It also helps that drag queens are very popular right now, and the media is all about chasing fads.

[-] ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago

It also helps that drag queens are very popular right now, and the media is all about chasing fads.

Couldn't possibly be because drag queens have very specifically been targeted and harassed over the last couple of years..

"Fad".. smfh..

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] SGGeorwell@lemmy.world 11 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I agree! As a lifelong member of the community, being de facto represented by drag queens has been a cringeworthy experience. They’re character actors who do not represent even close to a majority of the larger group. The loudest, most obnoxious members of any group should not be allowed to hog the spotlight. It ruins the ability of the larger group to form political alliances. Gangster rap doesn’t represent black people. Jihadists don’t represent Muslims. Karens don’t represent white women.

Years ago my Bible-thumpy step mother was showing decent progress on accepting us when she was invited to a birthday party at a drag club. She went, trying to be hip, and a drag queen on stage came down and literally grabbed her hair and humped her face for the lolz, causing her whole project of acceptance to come crashing down. I guess the queen was roasting her verbally, painful enough I’m sure - probably she was dressed like Nancy Reagan, which is going to stand out - but then the queen physically accosted and humiliated her. She stopped giving a shit about our tribe after that. Can you blame her? Centering obnoxious outliers as representatives is bad strategy.

[-] ravhall@discuss.online 12 points 2 years ago

Well, I’ll stand up for drag queens now and say that single one was a terrible person. That’s truly a shame.

I’ve rarely met a drag queen I didn’t like as a person. But there is definitely some sass to the job.

[-] sanctimoniousn0rth@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago

This take is so damn toxic man, drag queens have been fighting for rights for people like us for a long time - the reason they’re so visible is because they’re on the front lines of this regressive culture war.

Be more inclusive, not less. Excluding people in our community because you think using their voice is them being “obnoxious” only fuels division. It doesn’t even sound like you were there to confirm your step-mother’s version of the drag story.

You’re part of the problem too.

[-] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 years ago

Humping someone's face isn't speech.

It's sexual assault.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 17 points 2 years ago
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2024
220 points (92.3% liked)

News

35735 readers
1138 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS