Global Acceptance of LGBTQ On the Rise

A global divide on admission of LGBTQ communities remains but is narrowing, a new study shows.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-06-25/lgbtq-acceptance-growing-in-us-and-other-countries-over-time

THE GLOBAL PUSH FOR GAY rights around the world has been a long, slow struggle – in some Middle Eastern and African countries, for example, same-sex acts today can bring the death penalty. But public acceptance is increasing, even in culturally conservative countries, according to a global study released on Thursday.

People in the United States, India, South Africa, Japan, South Korea and Mexico have registered the largest gains in public acceptance with gay rights since 2002, according to findings released from the nonpartisan Pew Research Center.

Pew conducted its polling in 34 countries, including the U.S. The study finds public opinion around the world on the acceptance of gay rights is still divided by country, region and economic development, despite substantial change in laws and norms surrounding issues such as same-sex marriage and the rights of LGBTQ communities around the world.

Pew released its survey in June, celebrated as Pride Month in many countries. Pew first began international polling on the acceptance of gay rights in 2002, and 2013 is the last year the organization conducted its study. As in 2013, the data released today reflect public acceptance of gay rights is shaped by the country where people live. People in Western Europe and the Americas are generally more accepting than people in Eastern Europe, Russia, Ukraine, the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa, while people in Asia-Pacific countries are split on the topic.

Those differences are shaped by the economic development of countries, as well as individuals' age, education levels and religious and political views, says Jacob Poushter, the study's lead author and Pew's associate director of global attitudes research.

"Generally, more educated, younger and less religious respondents voiced greater acceptance of homosexuality than those who are less educated, older or more religious," Poushter said in an email.

Pew's study found substantial changes in public opinion. In the United States, for example, 72% today say homosexuality should be accepted, a sharp increase from 46% in 1994 and 51% in 2002, Poushter says.

Among other countries showing major increases in public acceptance of homosexuality since 2002:

• South Africa, which shows a 21-point increase in public acceptance;
• South Korea, where a 19-point increase is shown;

COURTESY OF PEW RESEARCH CENTER

In both Japan and Mexico, just over half said they accepted homosexuality; in 2002; nearly 7 in 10 respondents in today's study now approve.

Even in India, where today a minority (37%) today say they accept homosexuality, that level of approval is a 22-point increase.

Pew conducted the survey from May 13 to Oct. 2, 2019, polling 38,426 people in 34 countries.

The phrasing Pew used in its survey was, "And which one of these comes closer to your opinion? Homosexuality should be accepted by society OR Homosexuality should not be accepted by society." Pew began polling this question in the U.S. in 1994 and expanded globally in 2002.

Pew researchers acknowledge the word "homosexuality" can today be considered archaic but say the word is the most applicable and translatable when asking the question across societies and languages, and has been used in other cross-national research, including the World Values Survey.

Pew's study also found that people in wealthier and more developed economies are more accepting than countries that are less wealthy and developed. Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden, nations with a per-capita gross domestic product of more than $50,000, registered among the highest levels of acceptance. By comparison, less than 2-in-10 respondents in Nigeria, Kenya and Ukraine have per-capita GDPs of less than $10,000, express acceptance.

"Country wealth, measured by GDP per capita, is a still a driving force for attitudes towards acceptance of homosexuality in society, with people in wealthier countries expressing more acceptance than those in less developed economies," Poushter said.

Microphone Drop...

What happens if, as some are predicting, Trump decides to drop the mic and walk away?  Who will take his place on the Republican ticket?  Pence?  Some new nominee?

What do you predict would happen?

Same thing with Biden.  What would happen if Biden keels over?  Who gets to step in?  Bernie?  Is there any official protocol/procedures for this?

Thanks for posting and recommending.

The Administration's Evil COVID-19 Sabotage and Lies

Where the polls are today according to the 
poll aggregation source 538

Sabotage

The Washington Post writes:

In the hours before President Trump’s rally in Tulsa, his campaign directed the removal of thousands of “Do Not Sit Here, Please!” stickers from seats in the arena that were intended to establish social distance between rallygoers, according to video and photos obtained by The Washington Post and a person familiar with the event. 

The removal contradicted instructions from the management of the BOK Center, the 19,000-seat arena in downtown Tulsa where Trump held his rally on June 20.

BOK arena management bought the do-not-sit stickers for Trump’s rally to distance attendees in the arena. The stickers were meant to try to keep people distanced by leaving open seats. BOK staff put the stickers on almost every other seat in the arena, but Trump’s campaign came in and told event management to stop. Trump's goons then began removing the stickers. The WaPo article includes a sickening video showing a Trump goon removing the stickers from the seats. During the event, attendees did not leave spaces between themselves.

As would be expected from a campaign working for a chronic liar president who is expert at maintaining plausible deniability, the president's campaign lied and claimed that it was are not aware of any campaign staff asking or removing the social distancing measure.

That is evil. The president is personally responsible for very person who got infected there and for all who will suffer or die. All of that is harm and death directly on the president's hands.

Lies

The New York Times writes on the Vice President's first COVID-19 task farce briefing in about two months. The NYT writes:

The vice president falsely claimed that increased testing “is generating” more cases, among other exaggerations and inaccurate claims. 

The NYT pointed out that increased testing in other countries has not produced the increase in the infection rate now seen in the United States.

Pence claimed that “as we stand here today, all 50 states and territories across this country are opening up safely and responsibly” and “we flattened the curve”, both are a ridiculous claims the NYT labeled as false. Pence also falsely claimed that “more testing is generating more cases. To one extent or another, the volume of new cases coming in is a reflection of a great success in expanding testing across the country.”

The president is America's liar-in-chief, while the self-proclaimed "Christian" Pence is America's vice liar-in-chief. Either Pence is a fake Christian or Christianity accepts intentional lies that lead to needless suffering and deaths.

Lying through his unmasked, unchristian teeth --
note masked Fauci in the background enjoying the deception of the American people

Is it Time for Moral Condemnation?

“As soon as we develop algorithms that identify and block fake news sites, the creator of these sites will have a tremendous incentive to find creative ways to outwit the detectors. .... This framework paints a dreary picture of our hopes for defeating fake news. The better we get at detecting and stopping it, the better we should expect propagandists to get at producing and disseminating it. That said, the only solution is to keep trying. .... The idea that our search for truth in public discourse is an endless arms race between highly motivated, well-funded political and industrial forces attempting to protect or advance their interests, and a society trying to adapt to an ever-changing media and technological landscape, suggests that propagandists and others who seek to distort the facts will constantly invent new methods for doing so.” -- Cailin O’Connor and James Weatherall, The Misinformation Age: How False beliefs Spread, 2019

“I develop a theory of propaganda which affects mass behavior without necessarily affecting mass beliefs. A group of citizens observe a signal of their government's performance, which is upwardly inflated by propaganda. Citizens want to support the government if it performs well and if others are supportive (i.e., to coordinate). Some citizens are unaware of the propaganda (“credulous”). Because of the coordination motive, the non-credulous still respond to propaganda, and when the coordination motive dominates they perfectly mimic the actions of the credulous. So, all can act as if they believe the government's lies even though most do not.” -- Andrew Little, Propaganda and credulity, Games and Economic Behavior, vol. 102, pages 224-232, 2017 (paper behind paywall)(free 2015 online non-peer reviewed version)

On conformity bias

People’s beliefs can sometimes be influenced by a psychological trait called conformity bias. When a group of people falsely believe something, other people in their presence sometimes come to believe the false belief by losing confidence in their own veracity and/or by simply wanting to conform to what the group believes. The phenomenon is well-documented. Cailin O’Connor and James Weatherall comment in their 2019 book, The Misinformation Age: How False beliefs Spread: “While conformity seems to vary across cultures and over time, it reflects two truths about human psychology: we do not like to disagree with others, and we often trust the judgments of others over our own.”

On evil

One school of thought says it is counterproductive to use the word evil in political discourse because it is too pejorative, inflammatory, etc. It shuts down continued civil discourse. There is some truth in that line of argument. 

Another school of thought, or maybe just me, disagrees and argues that, we have descended into darkness enough that it is now time to call evil out for what it is, regardless of whether people are consciously aware or not. 

That raises the questions of (i) what the definition of evil is, and (ii) how one can rationally hold someone morally accountable for their own unconscious morality and attendant beliefs and behaviors.

Evil defined

IMO, evil is acts that are beyond mere immorality. Evil includes a conscious or unconscious element of malice or harm toward another person or group. Harm can arise from intent or lack of intent. It can arise from ignorance, or flawed or partisan reasoning. In this regard, I'm now going beyond condemning what most people*** are consciously aware of. I am no longer willing to accept or forgive unsupported beliefs that directly or indirectly cause undue harm, especially when evidence reasonably shows the errors. Ignorance of relevant of facts is no longer acceptable because the stakes are so high and facts are now available to most people. 

*** People who don't have the time or means to at least try to find real facts and non-bogus reasoning are excused. These days, there is no excuse for unwarranted ignorance or false beliefs flowing from logical nonsense. There is reliable information available online for free. People without access to information online are a different matter.

Civic duty

An argument against unwarranted ignorance is focused on both average people and on the special interests and people who use dark free speech and false beliefs for their own personal, economic, tribe or other benefit. Average people have a moral duty to at least try to not be deceived and manipulated into false beliefs and overtly irrational behaviors when those things harm important ideals including democracy, social comity and the rule of law.

People should be free to think and be nutty in private and in activities that are essentially private, e.g., church services, or in the home. But activities that affect the public and society are a different matter.

The situation for interests and people who use dark free speech is different. They bear moral responsibility for the false beliefs and resulting bad behaviors that flow from that. Arguably, when their propaganda causes people to harm themselves or others, even unintentionally, that crosses the line from immoral to evil.


Questions: Do average people have some civic duty to try to be more informed and less deceived? Is it evil to use dark free speech leads and it leads people to harm themselves or others, even unintentionally? If people fail or refuse to try to be more informed and less deceived and their false beliefs leads them to harm others, is that evil, immoral or something else, e.g., just a mistake?

At the dentist's office yesterday

Effects of Consuming and Believing Conservative Misinformation

Three recent studies have generated evidence indicating that misinformation from conservative media sources is linked to higher COVID-19 infection rates. Although there are multiple reasons for the failed US response including, a lack of a cohesive federal policy, botched testing and tracing, and a culture that emphasizes individualism, data is accumulating that indicates misinformation and false conspiracy theories are another factor in the failure. The Washington Post writes:

“The end result, according to one of the studies, is that infection and mortality rates are higher in places where one pundit who initially downplayed the severity of the pandemic — Fox News’s Sean Hannity — reaches the largest audiences.

“We are receiving an incredible number of studies and solid data showing that consuming far-right media and social media content was strongly associated with low concern about the virus at the onset of the pandemic,” said Irene Pasquetto, chief editor of the Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, which published one of the studies.

A working paper posted by the National Bureau of Economic Research in May examined whether these incorrect beliefs affected real-world behavior.

The authors used anonymous location data from millions of cellphones to explore how the popularity of Fox News in a given Zip code related to social distancing practices there. By March 15, they found, a 10 percent increase in Fox News viewership within a Zip code reduced its residents’ propensity to stay home, in compliance with public health guidelines, by about 1.3 percentage points.

Given total stay-at-home behavior increased by 20 percentage points during the study period, that effect size is “pretty large,” said Andrey Simonov, the study’s lead author. It’s comparable to Fox’s persuasive effect on voting behavior, as identified in a 2017 paper[1] by a different team.”

If the show does not take the virus seriously, 
viewer behavior is affected

One of the studies focused on Fox News viewers 55 and older in areas where Sean Hannity’s show is more or less popular than Tucker Carlson’s program. Hannity viewers changed their pandemic-related behaviors like hand-washing or canceling travel plans four days later than other Fox News viewers. By contrast, Carlson’s viewership changed behaviors three days earlier. The results were that a one standard deviation increase in Hannity viewership compared to Carlson was associated with approximately 32 percent more COVID-19 cases on March 14 and approximately 23 percent more COVID-19 deaths on March 28. The differences fade after the end of March presumably because since the middle of March, Hannity’s coverage had become quite close to Carlson’s in treating COVID-19 seriously.

Footnote: 

1. That 2017 study includes these comments:

“The largest elasticity magnitudes are on individuals from the opposite ideology of the channel. Were a viewer initially at the ideology of the median Democratic voter in 2008 to watch an additional three minutes of Fox News [FNC] per week, her likelihood of voting Republican would increase by 1.03 percentage points. Another pattern that emerges from the table is that Fox is substantially better at influencing Democrats than MSNBC is at influencing Republicans. This last feature is consistent with the regression result that the IV effect of Fox is greater and more consistent than the corresponding effect for MSNBC.

We find a persuasion rate of 58 percent in 2000, 27 percent in 2004, and 28 percent in 2008 for FNC. FNC is consistently more effective at converting viewers than is MSNBC which has corresponding estimated persuasion rates of just 16 percent, 0 percent, and 8 percent.

Our estimates imply increasing effects of FNC on the Republican vote share in presidential elections over time, from 0.46 points in 2000 to 6.34 points in 2008. Furthermore, we estimate that cable news can increase polarization and explain about two-thirds of the increase among the public in the United States, and that this increase depends on both a persuasive effect of cable news and the existence of tastes for like-minded news. Finally, we find that an influence-maximizing owner of the cable news channels could have large effects on vote shares, but would have to sacrifice some levels of viewership to maximize influence.”

She Wanted to Be a Republican President. She’s Voting for Biden.

The former Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina tells The Ticket that she plans to vote for Joe Biden.

Republicans who say Donald Trump should lose in November but insist they won’t vote for Joe Biden aren’t being honest, Carly Fiorina argues.

Fiorina was a Republican candidate for president just four years ago, and was briefly Ted Cruz’s prospective running mate. Trump needs to go, she says—and that means she’s voting for Biden.

Fiorina is not going to keep quiet, write in another candidate, or vote third-party. “I’ve been very clear that I can’t support Donald Trump,” she told me, in an interview that can be heard in full on the latest episode of The Ticket. “And elections are binary choices.” She struggled with the decision, and whether to go public. But she said that this struggle is one Republicans need to have—including those who have rationalized supporting Trump despite their disagreements, because of some of his policies or judicial appointments.

“As citizens, our vote is more than a check on a box. You know, it’s a statement about where we want to go, and I think what we need now actually is real leadership that can unify the country,” she said. “I am encouraged that Joe Biden is a person of humility and empathy and character. I think he’s demonstrated that through his life. And I think we need humility and empathy everywhere in public life right now. And I think character counts.”

Of course, Trump diehards will dismiss her. She has said over the years that Trump isn’t a real businessman, that he lacks character, that he is the definition of an autocrat, that impeachment was “vital.” But she’s not the stereotype of a Republican squish: Before her 2016 run, she was a Tea Party–type candidate for Senate in 2010 and the CEO of Hewlett-Packard. Four years ago, she voted for Trump—even after he’d been caught saying about her, “Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?”

Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who said she agrees with former Defense Secretary James Mattis that Trump is a threat to the Constitution, but is “struggling” with whether to vote for him, is putting politics over principle, Fiorina told me. John Bolton, who has said he hopes for America’s sake that Trump loses but that he’ll write in a conservative Republican, looks to Fiorina like he’s “desperately trying to preserve some position in the Republican Party as a conservative Republican.” As for Cruz, who’s turned into an avid Trump defender—she said she hasn’t spoken with him in years. And Trump, she told me, can tweet whatever he wants about her.

It hasn’t been an easy journey to backing a Democrat, especially when she thinks about issues that she cares deeply about, such as limiting government spending and restricting abortion. But as she’s been working with her Unlocking Potential Foundation, which focuses on increasing diversity among corporate leadership, she’s also been watching how the coronavirus pandemic has exposed inequality in America. She needed to speak up, too. Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are right, she said: The structures of power have been bent too far toward corporate control. But if conservatives really want to do anything about it, she said, they need to start by standing up for their principles.

What follows is an edited and condensed transcript:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/06/carly-fiorina-vote-biden/613474/