540
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 May 2024
540 points (96.1% liked)
Asklemmy
43917 readers
1483 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
No. I do support conditional retirement. What I don't want to do is remove those individuals who are older and have the connections and experience to get things done, and actually do the job they are there to do. I'm at work and don't have time to expand on the how, though a system should be put in place so that those conditions need to be followed, and locked in requiring majority approval through the normal process, with a subclause to be revisited every single damn year if it is temporarily unrestricted due to some issue or another.
It's those connections I specifically want to sever. Because they're usually connections to special interest groups, enemy nations, cults, etc.
Not only do I think elderly people shouldn't be allowed to hold office, I don't believe they should be allowed to vote. It has been conclusively proven that they vote "fuck you, got mine." You should not have a say in a future you will not live to see.
I'm on the fence about this as I agree and disagree with what you're saying. Not because the elderly do have a disproportionate amount of potential time to vote (with other possible complications that come with it), you're right that many of them won't see the true effects that their votes cause. Having said that...
I also feel that this is a slippery slope. It's not a far leap to deny voting rights to one group of people and then extend the denial of rights to another group.
These are the very things that the Right Wing has spent years, and millions of dollars, promoting in bad faith. Essentially brainwashing far too many people into believing they are correct to hide behind racism and hate and "patriotism" if it means not allowing some group or person they don't agree with to win, even if it hurts them.
Let older people vote. Restrict age and experience to mentor status - allowed to sit in and support revisions by guidance, not through official acts, and only if they have acted throughout their time in office for the good of the people within their station, and even then for X years, such as say two. That's my compromise.
old people don't have anything to do BUT vote, and bitch and moan, and most importantly to them, reminisce. Which means they won't actually be paying attention to current events, because they think they already know everything and can't understand new perspectives. My inlaws have members three generations older than me, and those fucking people - one of them said that she'd never bothered updating the opinions her parents gave her because "if they were good enough for them they're good enough for me" - I mean, they're literally living fossils, venerating the dead and having zero understanding of anything that's happened since September 11, the last world event worth noticing in their view.
You couldn't get three words into a discussion of some of the concerns of the modern world without their eyes glazing over. It's not possible for them to "get it".