Current Events > LGBT acceptance has dropped each year Trump has been president

(+) Yeah! (+)

Coincidence? Read the book...
---

What book?
---

Trump is poison
---

he said he would be the best president for the lgbtq people shocking he lied
---

How is "acceptance" defined, exactly?

I know a lot of people who think not giving a shit isn't "acceptance" when I feel like it's the exact opposite.
---

Swagnificent119 posted...

I know a lot of people who think not giving a shit isn't "acceptance" when I feel like it's the exact opposite.

Sometimes, indifference is the best you're going to get.

Questionmarktarius posted...

Swagnificent119 posted...

I know a lot of people who think not giving a shit isn't "acceptance" when I feel like it's the exact opposite.

Sometimes, indifference is the best you're going to get.

I feel like if someone doesn't care if you're gay or bi or whatever you're accepted.

Of course, I don't define my whole life by my sexuality so I'm weird probably.
---

Swagnificent119 posted...

How is "acceptance" defined, exactly?

I know a lot of people who think not giving a shit isn't "acceptance" when I feel like it's the exact opposite.

I'm assuming he's referring to the survey where people were answering if they were comfortable with family members, doctors and teachers being LGBT.
---

Darmik posted...

I'm assuming he's referring to the survey where people were answering if they were comfortable with family members, doctors and teachers being LGBT.

Okay, just checking cause I have no idea about this survey.
---

definition?

source?
---

This is fake bullshit.
---

Oh, well if a survey got us to this conclusion it just has to be true...

Where was the poll taken versus where it was taken before the supposed drop? I could easily skew poll results by polling in the near by city or outside my local walmart here in redneckville.

Also with it being more of a hot issue these days im betting its the trans people if anything people are not as accepting of. A lot of people dont give as much of a fuck until the media makes a issue of it.
---

https://time.com/5613276/glaad-acceptance-index-lgbtq-survey/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/06/24/lgbtq-acceptance-millennials-decline-glaad-survey/1503758001/

Thanks Trump
Thanks far-right propaganda.
Thanks "anti-SJWs"
---

It's the far left's fault, people aren't just swerving to the far right, it's far left crazies forcing LGBTQ acceptance down people's throats that has caused this, it would've happened under Clinton as well as it was a matter of time before pushback would happen.
---

Hop103 posted...

It's the far left's fault, people aren't just swerving to the far right, it's far left crazies forcing LGBTQ acceptance down people's throats that has caused this, it would've happened under Clinton as well as it was a matter of time before pushback would happen.

Why does that mean you aren't comfortable learning that a family member is LGBTQ?
---

hyperpsycho posted...

https://time.com/5613276/glaad-acceptance-index-lgbtq-survey/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/06/24/lgbtq-acceptance-millennials-decline-glaad-survey/1503758001/

Thanks Trump
Thanks far-right propaganda.
Thanks "anti-SJWs"

I admit I skimmed but 1800 people is a really small sample size considering results will vary drastically im sure depending on where the poll is being taken.
---

Hop103 posted...

It's the far left's fault

"It's always someone else's fault" may as well be the slogan of every conservative movement in the western world.

---

Hop103 posted...

It's the far left's fault, people aren't just swerving to the far right, it's far left crazies forcing LGBTQ acceptance down people's throats that has caused this, it would've happened under Clinton as well as it was a matter of time before pushback would happen.

Is becoming far right really a proper response to some people being really annoying?
---

Doom_Art posted...

Hop103 posted...

It's the far left's fault

"It's always someone else's fault" may as well be the slogan of every conservative movement in the western world.

The Party of Personal Responsibility
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Hop103 posted...

It's the far left's fault, people aren't just swerving to the far right, it's far left crazies forcing LGBTQ acceptance down people's throats that has caused this, it would've happened under Clinton as well as it was a matter of time before pushback would happen.

Is becoming far right really a proper response to some people being really annoying?

Well...
When we're simultaneously freaking out that 97% of straights wouldn't date a transexual, and also freaking out that transsexual athletes are dominating women's sports, the comfort of "the way it used to be" starts gaining some appeal.

Look at these shitstorms on CE, right now:
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/77817572
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/400-current-events/77818544

Doom_Art posted...

Hop103 posted...

It's the far left's fault

"It's always someone else's fault" may as well be the slogan of every conservative movement in the western world.

now wait a minute i heard u were the biggest anti-lgbt user on this board
---

A topic on a video game message board isn't freaking out about anything. Especially how that article tried to frame the results.
---

HylianFox posted...

Coincidence? Read the book...

I'll wait for the movie.

As with everything elated to this subject. At it's very core. They need to divide just being gay away from everything else. The LGB from every other letter they've added.
Because by and large, gay acceptance has risen. Just looking at my pretty conservative family, there's no problem with them. If you're gay you're gay. It's how god made you. Period.

It's everything else that the more mainstream media, SJWs, far left types is pushing hard. And that's the stuff that not only fundamentally a lot of people don't agree with it being a real thing. The hard push for it to become accepted causes pushback. It's doing more harm than good.

Like I said.
If you're gay you're gay. Sure.
Trying to force people to believe you can choose to be a different gender and should be allowed in woman's sports when you're a man and all the hundred other little dramas out there right now.
That's a hard no for many many people and that is one thing that is not going to change.
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

hyperpsycho posted...

https://time.com/5613276/glaad-acceptance-index-lgbtq-survey/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/06/24/lgbtq-acceptance-millennials-decline-glaad-survey/1503758001/

Thanks Trump
Thanks far-right propaganda.
Thanks "anti-SJWs"

I admit I skimmed but 1800 people is a really small sample size considering results will vary drastically im sure depending on where the poll is being taken.

The article also points out that the shift in young people is overwhelmingly coming from young women, but nobody's going to engage with that particular detail.
---

EternalDivide posted...

Like I said.
If you're gay you're gay. Sure.
Trying to force people to believe you can choose to be a different gender and should be allowed in woman's sports when you're a man and all the hundred other little dramas out there right now.
That's a hard no for many many people and that is one thing that is not going to change.

I'm sure accepting gay people wasn't going to happen for centuries. We're 200 years out from half of America breaking away because slavery was natural. Less than a century from castrating gay people. "It's not natural. It's depraved."

"People are just never going to accept trans people" is probably a poor argument.
---

1800 people is a massive sample size. You should read about how population statistics works.
---

That is interesting.

Whenever debates are engaged about inclusion (or lack thereof) about the LGBTQ+ community, it seems to only focus on Cisgender Males perspective & beliefs, and rarely ever Cisgender Females'.
---

LGBT acceptance has dropped each year Trump has been president

So has racial prejudice:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/05/24/racial-prejudice-trump-presidency-study/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e22bdcb0d940
---

The Admiral posted...

LGBT acceptance has dropped each year Trump has been president

So has racial prejudice:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/05/24/racial-prejudice-trump-presidency-study/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e22bdcb0d940

This is such a post
---

The Admiral posted...


---

ssjevot posted...

1800 people is a massive sample size. You should read about how population statistics works.

To me its small on the grounds that there is easly that many people in my small town and i live in a area that is pretty damn conservative. I dont like polls in general though.
---

The Admiral posted...

LGBT acceptance has dropped each year Trump has been president

So has racial prejudice:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/05/24/racial-prejudice-trump-presidency-study/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.e22bdcb0d940

Hopkins told The Washington Post that the results initially surprised him. Upon reflection, however, its quite conceivable that Trump has simultaneously galvanized a small number of highly prejudiced white Americans while also pushing millions more to affirm that they are not as prejudiced, he argued.

In other words, Hopkins believes the study provides evidence that the racially incendiary rhetoric and policies issuing from Trumps White House have pushed the majority of Americans in the opposite direction.

---

mooreandrew58 posted...

ssjevot posted...

1800 people is a massive sample size. You should read about how population statistics works.

To me its small on the grounds that there is easly that many people in my small town and i live in a area that is pretty damn conservative. I dont like polls in general though.

That isn't how statistics work though. It isn't about how it feels. 1800 people is far larger than most national polls. It's a massive sample size and has a lot of power.
---

ssjevot posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

ssjevot posted...

1800 people is a massive sample size. You should read about how population statistics works.

To me its small on the grounds that there is easly that many people in my small town and i live in a area that is pretty damn conservative. I dont like polls in general though.

That isn't how statistics work though. It isn't about how it feels. 1800 people is far larger than most national polls. It's a massive sample size and has a lot of power.

Isnt gonna change my opinion on the matter. When there are millions of people 2000ish people isnt enough to convince me of jack. As said ive never liked polls easy for them the be skewed even unintentionally. I mean ask 1800 people the same thing where i live and I bet it would be closer to 80% saying they dont like lgbt. I mean remember when polls showed Trump like had no chance at all of winning the election?
---

1800 people is more than sufficient as a sample size assuming the group is properly randomized.

You can find minimum accepted sample size using this calculator:

https://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

All you really need to survey the U.S. population is about 400 people for a +/- 5% error rating at 95% confidence.
---

The Admiral posted...

1800 people is more than sufficient as a sample size assuming the group is properly randomized.

You can find minimum accepted sample size using this calculator:

https://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

All you really need to survey the U.S. population is about 400 people for a +/- 5% error rating at 95% confidence.

Properly randomized in one area or across the country cause thats part of my issue. Results in this state overall would be drastically different than say california.

Once again still dont care for it as its millions of other people that could have answered very differently. Polls have ended up being wrong in the past so I have no reason to trust them.
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

The Admiral posted...

1800 people is more than sufficient as a sample size assuming the group is properly randomized.

You can find minimum accepted sample size using this calculator:

https://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

All you really need to survey the U.S. population is about 400 people for a +/- 5% error rating at 95% confidence.

Properly randomized in one area or across the country cause thats part of my issue. Results in this state overall would be drastically different than say california.

Once again still dont care for it as its millions of other people that could have answered very differently. Polls have ended up being wrong in the past so I have no reason to trust them.

It was randomized throughout the country. Believe it or not people doing statistics know more about it than someone who has clearly never taken even an intro stats course does.

Also no real polls showed Trump having no chance. People saw a 28.6% chance of winning (in a forecast derived from polls, not a poll) and assumed that would mean he would lose for no reason. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

28.6% chance means in over 1/4 of simulations they ran Trump won. It turns out reality conformed to that 1/4.
---

ssjevot posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

The Admiral posted...

1800 people is more than sufficient as a sample size assuming the group is properly randomized.

You can find minimum accepted sample size using this calculator:

https://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

All you really need to survey the U.S. population is about 400 people for a +/- 5% error rating at 95% confidence.

Properly randomized in one area or across the country cause thats part of my issue. Results in this state overall would be drastically different than say california.

Once again still dont care for it as its millions of other people that could have answered very differently. Polls have ended up being wrong in the past so I have no reason to trust them.

It was randomized throughout the country. Believe it or not people doing statistics know more about it than someone who has clearly never taken even an intro stats course does.

Also no real polls showed Trump having no chance. People saw a 28.6% chance of winning (in a forecast derived from polls, not a poll) and assumed that would mean he would lose for no reason. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

28.6% chance means in over 1/4 of simulations they ran Trump won. It turns out reality conformed to that 1/4.

---

ssjevot posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

The Admiral posted...

1800 people is more than sufficient as a sample size assuming the group is properly randomized.

You can find minimum accepted sample size using this calculator:

https://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

All you really need to survey the U.S. population is about 400 people for a +/- 5% error rating at 95% confidence.

Properly randomized in one area or across the country cause thats part of my issue. Results in this state overall would be drastically different than say california.

Once again still dont care for it as its millions of other people that could have answered very differently. Polls have ended up being wrong in the past so I have no reason to trust them.

It was randomized throughout the country. Believe it or not people doing statistics know more about it than someone who has clearly never taken even an intro stats course does.

Also no real polls showed Trump having no chance. People saw a 28.6% chance of winning (in a forecast derived from polls, not a poll) and assumed that would mean he would lose for no reason. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

28.6% chance means in over 1/4 of simulations they ran Trump won. It turns out reality conformed to that 1/4.

He won despite the odds the polls showed still. Not exactly convincing me I should pay atrention and trust polls.
---

mooreandrew58 posted...

ssjevot posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

The Admiral posted...

1800 people is more than sufficient as a sample size assuming the group is properly randomized.

You can find minimum accepted sample size using this calculator:

https://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

All you really need to survey the U.S. population is about 400 people for a +/- 5% error rating at 95% confidence.

Properly randomized in one area or across the country cause thats part of my issue. Results in this state overall would be drastically different than say california.

Once again still dont care for it as its millions of other people that could have answered very differently. Polls have ended up being wrong in the past so I have no reason to trust them.

It was randomized throughout the country. Believe it or not people doing statistics know more about it than someone who has clearly never taken even an intro stats course does.

Also no real polls showed Trump having no chance. People saw a 28.6% chance of winning (in a forecast derived from polls, not a poll) and assumed that would mean he would lose for no reason. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

28.6% chance means in over 1/4 of simulations they ran Trump won. It turns out reality conformed to that 1/4.

He won despite the odds the polls showed still. Not exactly convincing me I should pay atrention and trust polls.

You seem really proud to not know how odds work.
---

Pretty sure he is trolling. "Statistics said I had a 1/20 chance of rolling a 20, but I rolled a 20 in my D&D game, so shows how little they know."
---

hockeybub89 posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

ssjevot posted...

mooreandrew58 posted...

The Admiral posted...

1800 people is more than sufficient as a sample size assuming the group is properly randomized.

You can find minimum accepted sample size using this calculator:

https://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

All you really need to survey the U.S. population is about 400 people for a +/- 5% error rating at 95% confidence.

Properly randomized in one area or across the country cause thats part of my issue. Results in this state overall would be drastically different than say california.

Once again still dont care for it as its millions of other people that could have answered very differently. Polls have ended up being wrong in the past so I have no reason to trust them.

It was randomized throughout the country. Believe it or not people doing statistics know more about it than someone who has clearly never taken even an intro stats course does.

Also no real polls showed Trump having no chance. People saw a 28.6% chance of winning (in a forecast derived from polls, not a poll) and assumed that would mean he would lose for no reason. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

28.6% chance means in over 1/4 of simulations they ran Trump won. It turns out reality conformed to that 1/4.

He won despite the odds the polls showed still. Not exactly convincing me I should pay atrention and trust polls.

You seem really proud to not know how odds work.

Look im not a idiot that sees a poll and feels its the gospel. Thats all im saying. Especially knowing if one has an agenda its not hard at all to skew the results.I

Edit: im drunk now and more likely to get pissy so ima quit while im ahead. Letss just drop this as its off topic sorta and going no where
---