politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Heart disease is one of the biggest causes of death in all age brackets.
For people 65 and older it is the leading cause of death.
Is it ageist to point out that statistic? Is it ageist to recommend that older people should see their doctor regularly, pay special attention to their cardiac health, eat right, get exercise, etc?
Of course all people should do those things, but since those older people are the ones who are most at risk of those issues, I think it's pretty reasonable to specifically target them with those messages.
Ageism would be if you refuse to hire someone who's over 65, or insure them, or allow them to do other things just because statistically people in their age bracket are more likely to randomly keel over dead of a heart attack, whether or not they themselves actually have any cardiac issues.
Same goes for voting. Americans in general vote in pretty sad numbers, but the numbers for young people are especially bad, even if our current young people are better at it than young people of previous generations, the numbers for them still are pretty bad.
Pointing that out, encouraging them to vote, talking about why that's the way it is, what it means for them and for the rest of us, etc. isn't ageist.
What could be considered a form of ageism, however, is that because they don't vote in as great of numbers, politicians don't pay attention to the needs and wants of younger people.
And unfortunately since we can't just flip a switch and make politicians and other voters grow a conscience and take those younger people into consideration when they're making decisions, the only way to address it is to actually get those younger people to vote and make their voices heard.
There's other issues at play, the way people talk about young people not voting and such can certainly contain some ageist language, not all of the takes on the issue are good ones, and the way people try to target their messaging to those younger people to encourage them to vote is often seriously lacking, tone deaf, and even offensive.
There's also the issue that the way voting and politics are handled in this country can often make it difficult for young people to get to the poles, be engaged in the process, etc, and there's certainly an argument to me made for that being an ageism issue.
But just making the core statement that young people don't vote in high enough numbers is not in and of itself against.
Circling around to the all lives matter comparison
Just as people of any age can die of heart disease, people of any race can be needlessly killed by police. However, in both examples, people of certain demographics are at significantly higher risk of those things occurring. Yes there's a lot of overlap between things that may get both a black guy and a white guy shot by cops, or that may lead to both a 20 year old and an 80 year old having a heart attack, and tackling those common issues is important, but there's also risk factors that significantly impact one demographic or the other and they need special attention. Black people have to deal with poor police training, mental illness, drug use, etc. same as white people, but they also have to deal with systemic racism on top of that and white people don't generally have to deal with that, and old people have congenital heart issues, environmental exposures, poor diet and exercise habits same as young people, but have additional health concerns due to their age on top of that which don't tend to affect young people. As they say a rising tide raises all ships, but some of those ships have issues besides just being stuck at low tide, and the rising tide isn't going to do anything to fix their leaky hull.
Which is why "all lives matter" is such a stupid statement, because if they truly think that all lives matter, they'd be happy to see those leaky ships getting patched up so they can take advantage of the tide rising for everyone.
So yes, it's an issue that Americans in general don't vote enough, but younger people especially don't vote enough, and so we need to be paying special attention to that issue to try to solve that and make sure their voices are heard. And saying that calling attention to that issue is ageist because other demographics also don't vote enough absolutely has the same kind of energy as pulling the "all lives matter" bullshit when people talk about black people being killed by police because "white people can get shot too." Both can be true, and we need to address both parts of those issues, but one demographic needs a little extra or at least a different kind of attention. We can't ignore the age-related health complications, the systemic racism, and the factors that lead to poor voter turnout amongst younger people just because those issues don't affect everyone, we have to address them alongside those other issues.
“Old people can’t be ageist against young people”.
Is basically what you are saying.
Also that analogy with cardiac arrest? It is ageist if you then proceed to blame them for whatever. Older people have more cardiac-related problems because they’re old, and things just wear out. Genetics plays a huge risk factor there as well.
the problem here, is that this rhetoric is a prelude to “those damn kids didn’t vote and that’s why we lost”.
You want to make sure young people’s voices are heard? Then listen to them.
Pointing fingers rarely is persuasive or motivational.
I'd very much like to hear you explain how that is your takeaway from what I said.
Which would fall under the category of age-related health issues I mentioned that is one of the special considerations their specific demographic needs special attention paid to. People of any age can keel over of a genetic defect, and addressing those kinds of issues helps everyone, but it doesn't address the specific issue of a 70 year old with a worn-out ticker with no genetic issues, and so there also needs to be attention paid to those specific issues that don't affect young people. Just as addressing mental health issues helps everyone not get shot by cops but doesn't address systemic racism, and how improving voter turnout overall is good but may not be enough to specifically get younger voters to turn out in similar numbers to older ones.
And how wild would it be if those damn kids actually turned up and voted in unprecedented numbers, took this election by storm, and kept doing so for the rest of their lives turning politics on its fucking head, making politicians have to cater to them and subsequent young generations? It's only a prelude to that if 1. The younger people in fact don't vote and 2. The election is lost by a margin that could have been made up by those youth voters, and if both of those things happen, it would in fact be true that it's one of the reasons the election was lost from a numbers perspective, millennials and Gen z could be one of the biggest voting blocks, we have the numbers to call the shots if we just turn out and vote, but we don't.
I'm listening, hell, I'm looking forward to hearing your rebuttal to this, the problem is that what matters isn't getting some rando on the internet to listen to you, you need to get politicians to listen to you, and unless you have the money to throw around and buy them like big companies, lobbyists, and billionaires can do, the only way to get them to listen is by using your vote.
And sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling when someone says something you don't like doesn't exactly leave you very open to being motivated or persuaded, and yet here we both are doing weird things with our fingers.
See: the DNC acting like they can coast to a 2024 victory, 2016 style.
The proper definition of ageism is
While on its face, your example is indeed ageism, or rather actions predicated on ageist prejudices, the specific inclusion of an age requirement implies anything outside that age limit is fine.
Which, yes, young people are frequently barred outright from getting jobs they are otherwise qualified for, in favor of older candidates that are frequently less qualified. Especially in management or executive roles.
As for your cardiac example, again, it depends on the behavior that follows the totally benign statement of fact. For example, if you then berate people for not doing those things- regardless if there’s plenty of evidence they are- and totally ignoring the rather significant issue of genetics and economic factors (including access to healthcare and healthy food,)
You mean like they did in 2020? It’s not gonna be “wild”, because no generation is a monolith.
And you’re not going to motivate people- anyone- to vote by nagging them, berating, or callouts. In point of fact, that’s been my point all along: OP was ageist but didn’t need to be. It does more harm than good.
Which you’re not listening. Your telling me “no this isn’t ageist”, and all I hear is “BOHICA” because old people telling me to shut up and take their abuse has been a persistent fact of my life (and many millennials and gen z).
The reality is that 40% of all Americans don’t vote. The reasons that a higher proportion of seniors vote is that a higher proportion of seniors can vote.
I don’t mean legally. I mean, they physically have the ability to make time to vote (I.e., in 2022 26% of 65-75 are still working), have increased access to assistance to getting to the vote (there are programs specifically to help seniors with transportation to polls, or other help, and less resistance to seniors doing absentee or curbside voting.)
18-24 yo’s are likely still in school or working in jobs that don’t have easy-to-take time off (paid or otherwise,); are frequently attending non-local colleges and have significant difficulties getting back to vote or otherwise doing absentee ballots. Frequently they’re doing both school and working and simply don’t have the time.
So it should be expected that fewer make it to vote.
Saying “yeah you should vote” doesn’t really solve anything. Neither is it really all that motivational for people who “just don’t care”,
I’m yelling now? Or ignoring you?
What you’re saying isn’t persuasive. At least not to me. Congratulations on making that my fault though. Why is it my obligation to be open to be persuaded and not also yours?
65+ age groups have significantly improved polling access. Telling people to “just vote” when it’s significantly harder to get out to vote is sort of like telling people to “just go see your doctor” when they don’t have affordable access to one.
It does nothing to persuade, or motivate, just makes you seem condescending… and you kind of have to tailor the message to the recipients. Expecting a “just do it” message to go over well is a large part of how 2016 happened.