Not gonna lie, I don't think that I was mature enough at sixteen for my opinion to have mattered on a macro scale.
But do you think you cared more about the future than someone who is 70?
Is voting selfish reasons at 16 naturally better than someone doing the same at 80?
I agree, I probably didn't know enough at the time to make the most informed choice but I was definitely more idealistic, and I think that would have been a good thing.
Also, will there her more policy aimed at improving the lives of 16+ knowing they can vote.
I think the positives out way any downside.
Honestly no, I was a twat at sixteen. But I acknowledge that I'm speaking for myself.
I appreciate your honesty. I would have to say I was still a twat when I started to vote, and was for a long time after.
I agree, this guy was a twat!
I'm j/king. People change all the time, it's okay to acknowledge that.
I think being granted the right to vote at that age would have made me care enough to educate myself on some of the nuance. But I would also not describe myself as a typical meatbag.
Im 60 this year and feel the same now. I don't know shit, so not sure i should be asked to vote.
Don’t worry, now teens have TikTok which they can source their information from, so we should be safe
When my son turned 16 and my daughter was 18 I had that discussion with them, as I'm a supporter of being allowed to vote with 16.
My 16y old son was against it "Look at all my friends, they don't inform themselves and everyone would been voting for some shit party that promises something"
My answer to that is, most people do. "Being qualified" is not a condition for being able to vote. Yes, there's a line you cross when you grow up, a toddler obviously can't vote yet, an adult can.
But in the end it's arbitrary where you put that line and by moving it down to 16 you can "a bit" influence the relative large weight of older generations in elections.
When I vote, I'll have to live with the consequences for 30y in the best case before I'm worm food. For my kids the number is over 60y.
So regardless of "how qualified to vote" you are, moving down the election age changes the decision making to be of longer term and less of short term.
Most people aren't mature enough their entire lives, but we don't filter them out.
That's the shittiest part. Honestly some people don't deserve to vote, they just lack critical thinking
Braindead inbred fucks from the midlands who worship the Daily Mail as gospel can vote, so I'm not worried about the kids.
Seems convenient that it's happening now, under a conservative Labour PM, at the same time that data show that the generation currently around the age of 16 is generally more conservative than their parents.
But aside from that, this seems like a good thing.
But aside from that, this seems like a good thing.
I'm really not sure about that, even if not considering the relation of people from that age to personalized manipulative social media.
If you pay (edit: income) tax, you should have the right to vote. I'm not convinced by all of the catastrophizing about it. Turning 16 unlocks a lot of rights and privileges in the UK and I have faith that teenagers won't be the reason that quality of life worsens.
everyone who buys something in a shop also pays tax, because of VAT. should little Billy, 9 years old, be able to vote because ma' asked him to help her and buy a loaf of bread?
other options include either making it so that teens under 18 can work tax free, or banning people under 18 from working for money (probably the same as the other point practically while also enraging the teens), but I'm afraid that would incentivise more work instead of studying and socialization.
so, by this logic, we either fuck up their youth, ban them from working, or fuck up the whole country with even more voting gullible people.
I mean....the youth in general don't usually come out for elections, but I'd like to think that when they do, they'll be voting for their own long-term best interests. When it comes to gullibility, plenty of older people fall for scams and cults all the time, I mean shit, look at Brexit, a case where mostly older voters voted for something they probably didn't do too much research into a side from watching a political ad and just outright believing it. If impulsivity was a problem, then older people can have that problem too. Plus...you're talking about 9 year olds? Really? It's absurd to make the argument that the group of youths a mere 1-2 years before the 18 year old adulthood designation gaining voting rights would be the same as 9 year old children gaining the right to vote.
I mean....the youth in general don't usually come out for elections,
its just a tiktok short away. it'll also be much more efficient in telling them who to vote for than government tv channels were at any point
Plus...you're talking about 9 year olds? Really? It's absurd to make the argument that the group of youths a mere 1-2 years before the 18 year old adulthood designation gaining voting rights would be the same as 9 year old children gaining the right to vote.
obviously not. they were talking about taxpayers. everyone is a taxpayer when buying something in the shop. yes I see their edit now.
You realize your argument here is the same argument used against women being able to vote and black people being able to vote and a numerous others right? They're too gullible. They're not intelligent enough. They'll just do what they're told. All arguments that we've heard before.
Sorry, I meant income tax. So little Billy will not be able to vote. My bad, Billy.
Maybe but electoral outcomes can take decades to work out the consequences they have to live with, so it makes some sense.to allow them to have a voice.
When i voted my first time at 18 i wasn't engaged in either the process or the candidates, it took another couple years, so maybe by the time they're 18-20 they will take it seriously and be more engaged rather then by the time i was 22-24.
As a 60 yr old, lefty, I don't think an 80 yr old should have the vote. They had their chance for many, many decades.
It can either go terribly wrong or terribly right.
This either makes the far-right radicalize teens at an earlier age, or finally schools no longer will be for 50+ year old bitter people who want the younger generation suffer.
If the young crowd in the US is any indicator, the influence of right-wing propaganda could be very worrying.
It's the male loneliness epidemic.
Look, I will preface this by saying that I'm not an incel who thinks everyone is entitled to sex or that women should just get married and stay at home. I have to do this because there's some things coming up that could be misconstrued as a very controversial opinion on my part, whereas I'm trying to explain what some people might be feeling. I don't want to justify anything or anyone, I just want to explain my opinion of what's happening.
Long story short, people are having less sex and more crucially, dating less. Here's a source. The article surveyed men, but likely the same is true of women. But we're focusing on men for this bit anyway, since we're talking about the sudden right-wing turn of young males.
There are many reasons why people are spending more time online and less with potential romantic partners. I'm not getting into most of those. Many are valid. God knows I wouldn't want to date a potential Andrew Tate fan or a Trump voter if I was a woman. And on both sides of the gender aisle, there's new time consuming online hobbies, like gaming and doomscrolling.
This causes bitterness. I've been a teenager, and I'm still in my 20s. And I'm a dude. I can tell you that as a teenager there was a constant urge of "I wish I could get some" that masturbation could not quell for long, and once I did finally lose my virginity (well, after like the 2nd or 3rd time, everyone knows the first time is shit), I knew I wanted more of that and less of my hand. Luckily for me, I spent my late teen years in a stable relationship with a girl whose drive was also pretty high so we definitely had days of 4-5 sessions. As I've aged, I've calmed down on that front, there's been an entire calendar year or 2 where I didn't get any in my mid-late 20s, as I don't have a lot of game, or free time.
Enough about me though, that was just to point out that young dudes can get ridiculously horny*. But horny is just one issue. You can usually get by with a good ol' session of pocket billiards. But of course in your teens at least, you've been conditioned by shitty Hollywood teen coming-of-age movies to link sex with success as a male. And then there's shows like HIMYM, Friends, Seinfeld, whatever - the main characters are ALWAYS dating someone.
Now on to dating. That's the big elephant in the room. A lot of women nowadays have realized they don't need some asshole hanging around their home. Much more interesting to get an education, build a career to be proud of. Gives you a lot more freedom compared to the traditional wife. So a lot fewer women are dating in their 20s. Those that are dating - well, they just get to be pickier. It's a matter of supply vs demand, to put it extremely bluntly.
Apps make it even worse. Women on apps get to be extremely picky and receive hundreds or even thousands of matches with average looks in a big city, while men are happy to get into the tens. Why? Well, because there are a ton of horny dudes looking for just sex, and they devalue all the other men. Again, supply vs demand. A good saying I heard was "Men on Tinder are looking for fresh water in the desert, women on Tinder are looking for fresh water in the ocean". It sucks for everyone, unless you're looking for meaningless casual sex as a woman. Tons of that available for women. Hard to find anyone to actually date though and it seems that part applies for both genders. Especially because the apps' algorithms don't want you to find true love. The goal is to keep you on the app.
Another good reason for all this is the lack of the Third Place. I think the US is particularly bad in this regard, with suburban hell where you just have nowhere to go hang out and meet new people. No meeting new people in real life = you're stuck with the horrible reality of dating apps if you want to meet potential partners, or even just new friends. Here in my corner of Europe, we have mixed zoning mostly and walkable cities, so it's easier to just go walk to a bar, sit down, talk to other people who show up. No need to drive or order a rideshare.
So now we've established that young people aren't having much sex or dating. Why does that make people young men in particular go conservative? Well it's simple, really. It's the fucking tradwife thing. Society makes you feel like you're worthless if you don't date or have sex, so you feel lonely, maybe you don't even have any female friends. I know I didn't until I was like 15 or so, I was scared of talking to the girls. So you know jack shit about women as actual human beings, only know what you've consumed in the media, which objectifies women anyway, and you've got these shitty role models that tell you you as a man deserve an obedient woman, someone who doesn't talk back and does the chores and was a virgin before you. You absolutely fucking don't, nobody deserves a bangmaid. But we've got all these incels and that ideology just clicks with them. Of course they feel like they deserve what their forefathers had. That we should go back to a society before women had any agency. Etc. It's stupid as fuck, and it comes from indoctrination of lonely people. They're just looking for someone to blame, and an easy solution for their issues. That's always an easy thing for propaganda to make use of.
So what IS an actual solution? Some will say therapy, but it's pretty difficult to make millions of people realize they could use some. Nor are there enough therapists in the world for everyone to get therapy. Plus I don't think therapy is the end-all be-all solution for all the mental health issues the world is suffering from. I think the best solution, and I have no idea how this could be implemented, would be to just promote more inter-gender socialization in schools, kindergarten, etc. Just give young boys growing up every possible chance of making female friends. Not because those female friends are potential future romantic partners, but because I think a lot of guys just really need to understand women more and how can you understand them if you've never had any in your life as equals, as friends, hopefully close ones? I know I changed a lot as a person when I finally actually had some girls as friends. Learned to be more empathetic for sure.
Last, but not least: Us guys need to be there for each other more too. Ask your friends what's wrong. Hell, if your friend's been looking down for a while and doesn't want to open up, get him moderately drunk, but don't pry too hard. Let him open up on his own. Be supportive, don't offer solutions unless asked for. You may save someone's life.
TL;DR: Problem is incels. But that's an oversimplification and the incels themselves are not the root cause. Problem is loneliness and a bunch of men who don't necessarily understand women. It should really be fixed BEFORE these men grow up to be bitter incels. I bet most of them could do with more and closer friends in general too, not just female friends.
* I have of course been lead to believe by a feminist friend of mine that the same applies for women, but due to societal pressure, they're more likely to hide that part, possibly even from themselves. She may very well be right, given how slut shaming shapes women to be less open about sexuality, resulting in less fun for everyone involved.
Controversial opinion: I don't see a justification for ANY voting age.
For adults we (rightfully) don't make voting dependent on mental or physical capacity, being dependent on other people, and there also is no upper age limit.
So i wouldn't be opposed to allowing anyone elegible for voting to do so when he/she expresses the wish to do so.
There needs to be some limit. Babies and toddlers don't know shit, plus parents have an extreme amount of coercion over their children until they're teenagers. Also allowing children to vote will result in more political propaganda targeted at children. They deserve to enjoy childhood without worrying about the clusterfuck. I think "teenager" is probably as low as you want to go for the foreseeable future.
Babies and toddlers don't know shit, plus parents have an extreme amount of coercion over their children until they're teenagers.
Like I said we don't make this a prequisite for adults. There are plenty of disabled or old people fully dependent on others.
Also allowing children to vote will result in more political propaganda targeted at children.
That is an interesting point definitely worth debating. Propaganda would definitely be an issue, but this is the case not just in children, but adults alike. On the other hand with children becoming a voting block it might shift the focus slightly on topics benefiting them.
They deserve to enjoy childhood without worrying about the clusterfuck.
True, although I think children pick up a lot regardless. And importantly obliviousness of issues doesn't change how it affects them. Climate change and unfair pension systems for example will affect them regardless, this way they'd at least have a voice.
I think "teenager" is probably as low as you want to go for the foreseeable future.
I can for sure see how opinions can differ on the topic and I'd totally be ok with compromises and accepting some degree of hypocrisy. But nonetheless it's imo worth looking at the issue from the extreme.
As far as compromises go I think another way to go about it would be to have staggered voting with lower limits in more local votes. I could see how it might be more acceptable there for some.
Edit: also regarding babies and toddlers i'd think that they would need to express a desire to vote in some form, which would probably make it so you don't have literal 1 year olds voting (unless they are like an extreme genius, at which point they might aswell and it would only be a single vote of millions). Maybe one compromise would be to require some more active component below a certain age threshold, like having to vote in person for the first time or at least having to register somewhere (which if not done prior would happen automatically at a certain age).
Propaganda would definitely be an issue, but this is the case not just in children, but adults alike. On the other hand with children becoming a voting block it might shift the focus slightly on topics benefiting them.
you can't ignore the fact that even more propaganda would directly target them, taking advantage of very effective data mining based profiling. they should be able to experience more of life before advertisers starts to dictate their agenda, otherwise they'll easily think that advertisers are speaking the truth.
Climate change and unfair pension systems for example will affect them regardless, this way they'd at least have a voice.
they have a voice. It's not like people can only vote if they are in their last decade. turning 18, just 2 years, anyone can vote, and I would say even 30 and 40 years olds are largely affected by these issues.
you can’t ignore the fact that even more propaganda would directly target them, taking advantage of very effective data mining based profiling. they should be able to experience more of life before advertisers starts to dictate their agenda, otherwise they’ll easily think that advertisers are speaking the truth.
Yes, this is indeed an argument that shouldn't just be ignored. And honestly this should simply never be the case, regardless of age.
I'd break it up into two parts. Official election material and just general advertisements/media. The first one typically is already quite regulated and arguably for the benefit of all should already follow standards that are not harmful to children. The second one seems like the problematic one. However I'd argue that even children are already to some degree getting confronted with what's going on in the world. Anecdotally i can say that even at elementary school age children seem to be (to varying degrees) at least rudimentally aware of many things. To give a recent example like when Israel bombed Iran.
We have things like cigarettes and alcohol where we impose age limits, but those are directly harmful things. Hard to argue that voting in a democracy is harmful. Sometimes there might be anti democratic parties (like the afd here in germany for example), but in those cases you'd think about banning those, not taking away the ability to vote. Maybe you or someone else could give me an example of something positive being banned based on age because the state/society can't provide protection from something secondary.
I would also add that advertisement to a young voting base wouldn't exclusively need to be a bad thing. Take free school lunches for example. If as a politician you run a campaign on that for example you are banking on gaining favor from a voter base that only indirectly is affected by it. The people directly benefiting from it can't vote for you.
they have a voice. It’s not like people can only vote if they are in their last decade. turning 18, just 2 years, anyone can vote, and I would say even 30 and 40 years olds are largely affected by these issues.
They have a voice, but no vote, which is what matters for the politicians in charge. Also "just 2 years" falls flat since my argument is not about the lowering to 16, but abolishing it in general. So for the sake of argument for example an 8 year old, which would make it a full decade. In practice even longer, since elections aren't every year and you aren't guaranteed to have one in the year you turn 18.
And you are right that even 30 and 40 year olds are affected by these issues, but i don't see how that would be an argument against it. If anything i'd see it as an argument that children should also have a say. We also don't have an upper limit after which you aren't allowed to vote anymore. And for obvious reasons it would e.g. be impossible to have a rule that says x years before you die you aren't allowed to vote anymore, since you won't suffer all the consequences.
Yes, this is indeed an argument that shouldn't just be ignored. And honestly this should simply never be the case, regardless of age.
when will we ban personalized advertising?
or any kinds of advertising that is more than just showing that your product/service is there.
but unfortunately, with deceptive videos all over the internet, that wouldn't help at all.
However I'd argue that even children are already to some degree getting confronted with what's going on in the world.
that's right, but I think because of a lack of substantial amount of experiences (before being exposed to media), they have much less of a chance at figuring out what's real and what isn't.
heck I only started using facebook near the end of elementary school. and then when I got to be voting age, I had almost no clue about the running political parties, how truthful they are and what is their past. I just slightly missed being able to vote the time before that, and I know that I would have voted for a liar with a corrupt past, because of facebook ads of their party I assume. "oh look, they are apologizing and they regret it! they look so honest!"
nowadays? they just post a tiktok video that they'll give money to all below 20 if they are elected, and they get a bunch of votes. and the election office will do nothing. or they promise to lower the graduation requirements. or to make it unlawul to ban smartphone usage at school lessons. or anything that sounds good to them but everybody else knows is a bad idea.
they could have even cooperated with another party to make sure this one doesn't get elected, but takes votes away from another one.
all because they promised something on tiktok, or really any platform that auto plays videos when scrolling by.
deceptive social (and traditional) media is exactly why we can't allow this. and if you allow them to vote, you just made it so that now we can't even keep them away legally from that social media, because if you do that they won't vote for you anymore, and the next party will just undo your laws.
And you are right that even 30 and 40 year olds are affected by these issues, but i don't see how that would be an argument against it.
I think those adults had decades of life experiences that could have helped them recognize that they are being deceived and used. childrens won't have any of that. They'll have no chance of recognizing that, unless someone they trust tells them and they want to believe it.
it would also be interesting to read a study that compares the effects of video effects, animations and vibrant nice colors in videos on different age groups.
I'm reading your post and it reads just the same as what applies to many adults.
I know that I would have voted for a liar with a corrupt past, because of facebook ads of their party I assume. “oh look, they are apologizing and they regret it! they look so honest!”
I can't even get started how many politicians have a corrupt past here in Germany and got plenty of votes.
nowadays? they just post a tiktok video that they’ll give money to all below 20 if they are elected
Here in Germany parties actively ran on the promise of raising and fixing the pension levels in an already unsustainable system. Alongside other gifts to certain voter bases. The one left out (I assume partially because they are not able to vote): The youth.
I also think you vastly overestimate the amount of influence underage voters would yield. Especially in our demographic structures and based on the fact that a significantly lower share of them would actually make use of it. They certainly wouldn't have the power to introduce sweeping changes against the better judgement of other voting blocks. But you are right that they might influence smaller changes.
To take one of your examples i could see that for something like the smartphone ban. But would that be so bad? It might be a good thing, but i don't think this is conclusively proven. In return it is probably something being pushed by a large majority that might not even use a smartphone on a daily basis or at the least is very far removed from the current level of technology. And it also wouldn't all need to be negative. Take for example the stop killing games petition that is quite popular on this site. That one might suddenly gain some more supporters, which are actually affected by it.
However i'd also see a need for more studies. And i probably wouldn't just make a major shift like that instantaneously, but rather in a gradual way and maybe lead with changes to smaller more local elections first. Which might give opportunities for such studies.
Here in Germany parties actively ran on the promise of raising and fixing the pension levels in an already unsustainable system. Alongside other gifts to certain voter bases. The one left out (I assume partially because they are not able to vote): The youth.
so they were lying, except to the youth, because to them they didn't have a message. that's a positive thing to me.
But you are right that they might influence smaller changes.
part of my worries is this, but rather how will this affect all of them, when sociopathic people will start targeting them with even more brainwashing/reeducation content.
To take one of your examples i could see that for something like the smartphone ban. But would that be so bad?
what do you mean? the banning the school-level banning of it? the problem is not smartphones themselves, but what they can do.
playing games and scrolling social media on lessons. taking pictures of your peers against their will, like when they get humiliated. using the infra blaster to fuck with classroom equipment. all of these were happening in my class, just a few years ago. unless your solution is mandating school-issued spyware on every phone, which I don't support, the only solution is to ban them in one way or another. possibly only on lessons. and then somehow solve the problem of stolen phones, when someone knowingly took away a different phone at the end of lesson.
That is beyond stupid. Hell our brains aren't fully developed at 18 , at 16?
What are your thoughts on people with degenerative brain diseases being able to vote?
Should you have to take a test once you hit 70 to confirm you are still aware enough to vote in an informed way? (Should you be able to work in politics after 70?)
I admit I'm taking it to the extreme to make a point but if you can work and pay tax at 16, I think being able to vote makes sense.
the age limit is not about closing people out entirely, but limit it while they are more gullible. sure there's lots of fools beyond 18, but the concept is that hopefully most people as they ahe, become less so, and much of that process happens around age 18 and somewhat beyond.
now add that kids today are not only exposed to shit spreading on facebook but now tiktok too, and they don't know when they are being deceived. source: I didn't know with facebook when I was in that age.
look, there were not too many elections yet on which I could have voted. but I think even 18 might be too early. I remember that I just missed an election by a few months, and today I'm ashamed of what would have been my choice. I almost voted for a party that looked ashamed of its corrupt past, just because they acknowledged it and promised it wouldn't happen again.
this is not a step forward.
If your main points are around misinformation, propaganda, fake new, ai generated content or anything that convinces people of something that is false, I would say this is a huge, but separate issue that affects everyone, not just 16-17 year olds.
Younger people consume different types of media and paying influencers to pick political sides doesn't seem to be as uncommon as I would like.
That being said, Cambridge analytica already showed us that the age groups that can vote are not immune to have their opinions manipulated via targeted misinformation.
They are just as fucked as we are, let them vote.
okay. but then just delete the age limit. lets have kindergarten aged kids vote. what could go wrong?
If we are taking things to extremes to make the point.
You plan would be to block anyone that may be gullible from voting.
The question is how? Forced iq tests or level of education achieved. Maybe some demographics are more susceptible? Age, race, gender? Maybe location. Are rural communities less likely to consume propaganda? Are they more likely?
It seems the original argument was that if at 16 you can join the army and fight in a war, should you get a voice on if we go to war?
I think yes.
You plan would be to block anyone that may be gullible from voting.
where did I say that? my suggestion is to not increase the proportion of gullible people, perhaps reduce it by slightly increasing the age limit (like to 20)
The question is how? Forced iq tests or level of education achieved. Maybe some demographics are more susceptible? Age, race, gender? Maybe location. Are rural communities less likely to consume propaganda? Are they more likely?
some kind of test would be ideal, but it sounds like Pandora's box. an assumed "good" administration starts doing it, but even if it's done fairly at the beginning, it's too easy to change it to be used discriminatively
It seems the original argument was that if at 16 you can join the army and fight in a war, should you get a voice on if we go to war?
I think yes.
I'm confident that 16 year olds should neither have voting rights, nor be allowed to go to war.
As a young person that vividly remembers what I and people around me were like at that age, I really don't think that we should have been allowed to vote. Optimal age for maturity would probably be around 20.
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. 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.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/