this post was submitted on 09 May 2025
793 points (99.1% liked)

Microblog Memes

7578 readers
2981 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] aeronmelon@lemmy.world 121 points 9 hours ago (12 children)

peace out

Spend their retirement calling the cafeteria staff at Luby’s racial slurs and saying trans kids and drag queens are evil.

[–] Zero22xx@lemmy.blahaj.zone 55 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

And voting for people that will make everyone's life hell and ensure that no one else will ever get to experience the quality of life that they did.

[–] Lucien@mander.xyz 17 points 7 hours ago (5 children)

Not to sound ageist, but I firmly believe voting privileges should be revoked when you retire.

[–] i_dont_want_to@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 39 minutes ago

I would think that removing the barriers to voting that affect younger voters is the better option, along with getting rid of the electoral college and allowing felons to vote. Taking away voting rights for certain classes of citizens is a slippery slope, especially when the root problem is some votes count more than others and many potential votes never make it to the polls.

[–] Num10ck@lemmy.world 1 points 23 minutes ago

they way leaders emerge from certain personalities, and get so corrupted, i think we'd be better off with random selection.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 23 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

If you need to wait 18 years to vote you shouldn't be able to vote once you are 18 years from average life expectancy (as in life expectancy is 80, you can vote until you're 62, not after).

Imagine how much focus would be put on healthcare if that were the case...

[–] NJSpradlin@lemmy.world -2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

A quick google says the US is 77 years, add 18 to that and you’re already way too high. 77 is geriatric, just like everyone complained about the last and current US presidents.

Or… did you mean ‘from’ as in below? That would make more sense. Early 60s isn’t too old though.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 4 points 4 hours ago

Yes, I meant 18 years after birth = 18 years before average age of death, so politicians would need to either reduce 18 to something lower or would have to work to increase life expectancy.

[–] ByteMe@lemmy.world 6 points 6 hours ago

I'm not sure about voting but probably about being elected

[–] letsgo@lemm.ee 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

I wonder if you'll still firmly believe that when you retire.

[–] SARGE@startrek.website 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I don't trust anyone with one foot in the grave to make long term decisions that benefit young people more than themselves any more than I trust a small child to make sound logical laws about bedtime.

[–] letsgo@lemm.ee 1 points 45 minutes ago

Well we all vote in our own best interests, as I'm sure you do too. The art of good governance is to provide an environment in which everyone can thrive.

The problem here is not old people who don't vote in your best interest, it's the government that aren't ensuring everyone is catered for.

[–] frunch@lemmy.world 6 points 6 hours ago

They didn't just pull up the ladder behind them, they have a ladder propulsion system that will launch it into space

load more comments (9 replies)