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
    link
    111 months ago

    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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -911 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

      • @Ep1cFac3pa1m
        link
        311 months ago

        Again, how does that help me understand the structure of the atom?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          -811 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
            link
            5
            edit-2
            11 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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              -811 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
                link
                4
                edit-2
                11 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.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  -811 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
                    link
                    511 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.