Rendered at 06:39:54 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
julianeon 10 minutes ago [-]
I think we tend to forget about the importance of reversion to the mean, socially.
We think: Germans are like this, the French are like this, the Dutch are like this... without thinking that, when one moves out of sync w/the others, its likely, statistically, to move back into line w/the others.
This has nothing to do with left or right specifically. It means that, whatever the mean is, if a country is not there, it's likely to move in that direction over time. It's more likely to move closer to that than away from that, measured over years.
The Dutch were very liberal and still are in many ways, but in such a situation, they are more likely to move in the "less" than "more" direction. And this is probably such a case.
wvbdmp 25 minutes ago [-]
What does it mean to have “a positive view of homosexuality”? Did they ask them to rate homosexuality out of 10? This is one of those infuriating articles that is worth almost nothing without the specifics of the survey, which, inexplicably, are never given.
Edit: This seems to have the questions on p. 93: https://www.trimbos.nl/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/TRI-52-007... J is boys and M is girls, and the questions are things like “I could be friends with gay kids”, “It’s gross when two boys kiss each other” and “I can talk about homosexuality at school”, so a drop is indeed concerning.
add-sub-mul-div 1 hours ago [-]
Morality aside, living as an intolerant is such a bad value prop. You're really just signing up to be mad your whole life, because the toothpaste does not go back in the tube. Gays are not going back in the closet. Just like interracial marriage is not going away, and women's suffrage is not going away. If you're mad about these things you're like a social footnote that people fifty years from now won't really understand because the things you're mad about will have inevitably become so normalized.
anon291 1 hours ago [-]
I mean, will it be normalized? By the way rates are going it seems quite the opposite.
And your other examples don't quite work. Interracial marriage has been allowed in many places (if not most places) throughout history, and even female suffrage was a thing in some polities. Homosexual marriage is not a something that's ever really been practiced in its current form until basically the 1970s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage
lunchbucket 53 minutes ago [-]
> Interracial marriage has been allowed in many places (if not most places) throughout history, and even female suffrage was a thing in some polities.
You do understand that they were referring to the places it was disallowed? LGTBQ people and same sex marriage have also been tolerated in some times and places (even before the 70s).
anon291 43 minutes ago [-]
> LGTBQ people and same sex marriage
While homosexuality has been accepted in many nations and cultures before the modern day, gay marriage including custodianship over children is basically a 21st century invention.
It's not a "21st century invention," not even because it has a longer history than that, but because it's just marriage. It isn't an innovation. Any more than women's suffrage was an innovation. In both cases it's extending enfranchisement to more people.
wyre 55 minutes ago [-]
What do you mean the way rates are going? Homosexuality has existed for as long as there have been humans.
anon291 44 minutes ago [-]
I'm talking about approval for gay marriage not homosexuality. Obviously homosexuality is ancient. Homosexual marriage in the modern sense is absent from the historical record until 1971. Where it was portrayed it was typically as a joke .
I'm being down voted but I have no real stance on this. If anything I'm in favor of civil rights for all, but I don't see how that changes the historical record. Gay marriage is a novelty compared to female suffrage and interracial marriage.
lemmetellya 36 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
lemmetellya 40 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
0xbadcafebee 52 minutes ago [-]
And the church and its conservative patriarchal misogynist homophobic dogma ruled all our lives for centuries. But it turns out you can beat the church, if you prove to people that there's no invisible man in the sky watching everything you do, dinosaur bones weren't planted here 6,000 years ago, and gay people are actually normal people that are just slightly different. Conservatives may be depending on hate to keep their numbers up, but that's all they have now.
anon291 39 minutes ago [-]
Once again, I'm not sure this is true. Perhaps the Catholic Church is beaten and relegated to the dustbin of history. The article fails to mention the real reason behind a lot of the LGBT acceptance rates going lower, which is that Muslim migrants have more kids and Islam is a very socially conservative religion.
So maybe you beat the Catholics but is there enough willpower to defeat the Muslims?
Again, you're assuming I'm sort of social conservative pariah. I'm not.
> and gay people are actually normal people that are just slightly different
Once again you're trying to convince me instead of the children of the Netherlands. Good luck.
richardsp 30 minutes ago [-]
Your analysis is correct. Personally, I think that Islam getting the western left to embrace it as part of "the oppressed" has been the most successful social social movement of the last 20 years.
We think: Germans are like this, the French are like this, the Dutch are like this... without thinking that, when one moves out of sync w/the others, its likely, statistically, to move back into line w/the others.
This has nothing to do with left or right specifically. It means that, whatever the mean is, if a country is not there, it's likely to move in that direction over time. It's more likely to move closer to that than away from that, measured over years.
The Dutch were very liberal and still are in many ways, but in such a situation, they are more likely to move in the "less" than "more" direction. And this is probably such a case.
Edit: This seems to have the questions on p. 93: https://www.trimbos.nl/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/TRI-52-007... J is boys and M is girls, and the questions are things like “I could be friends with gay kids”, “It’s gross when two boys kiss each other” and “I can talk about homosexuality at school”, so a drop is indeed concerning.
And your other examples don't quite work. Interracial marriage has been allowed in many places (if not most places) throughout history, and even female suffrage was a thing in some polities. Homosexual marriage is not a something that's ever really been practiced in its current form until basically the 1970s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage
You do understand that they were referring to the places it was disallowed? LGTBQ people and same sex marriage have also been tolerated in some times and places (even before the 70s).
While homosexuality has been accepted in many nations and cultures before the modern day, gay marriage including custodianship over children is basically a 21st century invention.
It's not a "21st century invention," not even because it has a longer history than that, but because it's just marriage. It isn't an innovation. Any more than women's suffrage was an innovation. In both cases it's extending enfranchisement to more people.
I'm being down voted but I have no real stance on this. If anything I'm in favor of civil rights for all, but I don't see how that changes the historical record. Gay marriage is a novelty compared to female suffrage and interracial marriage.
So maybe you beat the Catholics but is there enough willpower to defeat the Muslims?
Again, you're assuming I'm sort of social conservative pariah. I'm not.
> and gay people are actually normal people that are just slightly different
Once again you're trying to convince me instead of the children of the Netherlands. Good luck.
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2025/09/a-muslim-majority-city-b...