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
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.