Ageism would be if you refuse to hire someone who's over 65, or insure them, or …. (Snip)

The proper definition of ageism is

any form of discrimination based on age.

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,)

And how wild would it be if those damn kids actually turned up and voted in unprecedented numbers,

You mean like they did in 2020? It’s not gonna be “wild”, because no generation is a monolith.

I'm listening, hell, I'm looking forward to hearing your rebuttal to this, ….. (snip)…. the only way to get them to listen is by using your vote.

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”,

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

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.