this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2024
245 points (99.2% liked)

News

23177 readers
2872 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.


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


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


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.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


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 or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. 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.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Survey of young people aged 16-25 from all US states shows concerns across political spectrum

The overwhelming majority of young Americans worry about the climate crisis, and more than half say their concerns about the environment will affect where they decide to live and whether to have children, new research finds.

The study comes just weeks after back-to-back hurricanes, Helene and Milton, pummeled the south-eastern US. Flooding from Helene caused more than 600 miles of destruction, from Florida’s west coast to the mountains of North Carolina, while Milton raked across the Florida peninsula less than two weeks later.

“One of the most striking findings of the survey was that this was across the political spectrum,” said the lead author, Eric Lewandowski, a clinical psychologist and associate professor at the NYU Grossman School of Medicine. “There was no state sample where the endorsement of climate anxiety came in less than 75%.”

The study was published in the Lancet Planetary Health, and follows a 2021 study covering 10 countries. Both the previous and current study were paid for by Avaaz, an advocacy group.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] -5 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (2 children)

They won't, there's nobody to inspire them like Bernie, just pro-fracking, genocide-sponsoring Democrats and even worse Republicans.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 hours ago (3 children)

Or even worse, people like you who do everything they can to disparage the only party that might possibly do something good...

You think you're being sly, but it's just cringe.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 5 hours ago

Or even worse, people like you who do everything they can to disparage the only party that might possibly do something good…

"The problem isn't with the politicians and their policies, it's with people disparaging them."

In my 42 year being alive, has social mobility improved? Is the education system allowing more young people to succeed? Have we made strong inroads into ensuring all young people have food and a place to live?

If no, then maybe the problem is not with people being disparaging.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

If talking about Democrat policies is disparaging to the party then I don't know how I'm supposed to explain why the young folks aren't excited to vote without disparaging the party. XD

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Choosing between shit and a shit sandwich, it's fine to point out one has carbs but it's dishonest to pretend you're excited to eat a shit sandwich

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah that's not what's happening here...

[–] [email protected] -3 points 6 hours ago

Then either you think that young people will be turning out in droves this election or that some other reason is why they aren't excited to vote.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

And that's the problem. Why do they need someone to inspire them when they should also be interested and invested in their own future? Can't say the same thing is happening in my country, generally even the most politically apathetic person at this age range (me included) understands the importance of it but somehow this seems like a wild idea in the US?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (2 children)

And that's the problem.

I agree, it's a very serious problem that the Democrats continue to push policy that is unpopular with young folks.

Why do they need someone to inspire them

Because elections are popularity contests.

they should also be interested and invested in their own future

They very clearly are, but there aren't any American political parties that are invested in their future. Just ones that pretend to cater to them while selling them out to the oil and weapons industries.

somehow this seems like a wild idea in the US?

Yeah, it sucks. Any time you start talking about making the future suck less, Republicans start calling you a commie socialist and Democrats kick you out of the group chat.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 hours ago (3 children)

That seems very defeatist though? I mean I get where you're coming from in that ideally we'd have options which align more with what we want to move towards progress but realistically that's not something that's entirely possible right now.

Right now, there's an option that pushes progress further back and the other one that seems somewhat neutral by comparison (unfortunately). In that case, wouldn't picking the lesser evil be better than simply standing by and doing nothing?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

It's not defeatism, it's political realism based on an understanding that the USA is not and has never been a democracy. The only two parties that matter get to pick their constituencies and they cannot fail, they can only be failed by the usual electoral scapegoats.

And in any case, the DNC knows they're winning this election so why should they risk alienating their corporate and billionaire donors by appealing to the idealism of the youth?

Also, I don't believe in lesser-evilism. If a party can't pass an anti-genocide bar that's so low as to be subterranean, then they aren't getting my vote.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

While I agree with you in the ideal scenario, wouldn't the end result of not voting for the lesser evil lead to the outcome where the greater evil wins anyways? In that case, realistically, wouldn't a lack of a vote be practically equivalent to a vote for the greater evil?

I'm not American and so I have no idea how things on the ground are like but it does seem that the people who support the republicans seem to be a lot more passionate in voting for their end?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

While I agree with you in the ideal scenario, wouldn't the end result of not voting for the lesser evil lead to the outcome where the greater evil wins anyways?

Only in the short term, because the victory of the greater evil activates people politically. That's how we got Biden in 2020, it was as inevitable as Harris' victory next month.

In that case, realistically, wouldn't a lack of a vote be practically equivalent to a vote for the greater evil?

No, abstaining is abstaining regardless. All blame directed at uncommitted voters is in reality a fault of the parties that fail to appeal to them.

The voters cannot be blamed for the lacl of choice they were given, to do so is to insist that the parties have a right to make demands of the voters rather than the other way around.

it does seem that the people who support the republicans seem to be a lot more passionate in voting for their end?

Yup. They've got a party that promotes their sense of greivance and Democrats can't match that energy without moving left and alienating their right-wing campaign financiers.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

No, abstaining is abstaining regardless. All blame directed at uncommitted voters is in reality a fault of the parties that fail to appeal to them.

The voters cannot be blamed for the lacl of choice they were given, to do so is to insist that the parties have a right to make demands of the voters rather than the other way around.

I can't say I agree entirely with you here since it does seem to equate a lack of variety in choices is the same as a lack of choice. Still, I do somewhat get what you mean and I can respect that. Either way, thanks for humouring me, it was enlightening to see the other perspective.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 hours ago

it does seem to equate a lack of variety in choices is the same as a lack of choice

That would seem to be a fundamental point of contention there. In my perspective, a distinction without a difference is a distinction in name only. If there's no variety to a choice then it might as well be moot, the only people who have agency are the ones who constrained the window of choosable options.

Anyways, I'm happy to share my weird perspective on politics. It's always nice when folks actually listen instead of just ending the conversation by declaring me part of their opposition. XD

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Let's look at the topic of this thread. Is Harris neutral? She's walked back her stance on being against fracking.

The options are "a lot worse" or "less worse." And those are the options every four years. Voting is ineffective, and Democrats are just as bad as Republicans when it comes to making villains out of climate protestors.

Yes harm reduction is important and I think young people should vote Democrat. But Democrats have done nothing to earn it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 hours ago

Yea I definitely agree with you entirely and I don't think what I said is in anyway counter to what I said. I do wish that's what people in general keep in mind when choosing what to vote or even voting at all.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Forget it, you're talking to a brick wall.

Let them get some life experience and maybe in 15-20 years it'll be a productive conversation.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I lost my faith in the American political system over 20 years ago...

[–] [email protected] -2 points 6 hours ago

As a commie socialist I believe that's exactly what we need to make the future suck less