4 ms·

It's funny to see the AARP working together with EFF and Mozilla.

by wsha 10y ago

nerflad 10y ago
A friend of mine is a Brand Ambassador for AARP and they are working to reverse this exact perception. She teaches "technology" classes -- basically, how to use a tablet/smartphone -- to seniors.
woofyman 10y ago
Why? The AARP foundation is involved in all areas of consumer protection since many retired people have limited funds. http://www.aarp.org/aarp-foundation/our-work/legal-advocacy/afl-docket-consumer-and-utilities.html http://www.aarp.org/aarp-foundation/our-work/legal-advocacy/... Your comment comes across as ageist. Edit: surprising rather than funny would have been a better adjective.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- michaelt 10y ago
  Why? It's a little surprising because a lot of advocacy groups focus their resources on problems with a significantly disproportionate impact the people they represent, and it's not obvious at first glance why this issue would disproportionately impact retired people. Coloured people and gun owners also print things out, but I don't see NAACP or NRA putting their names on this amicus brief :) Still, when it comes to supporting common sense amicus briefs like this one I say the more the merrier! If NAACP and NRA want to sign the brief too, let them :)
  - legodt 10y ago
    Holy shit, did you just say "colored people" in 2017? That's not cool, anymore, dude
    - gknoy 10y ago
      I suspect it was a deliberate usage based on the expansion of the NAACP acronym, rather than a term one would normally use. In _this_ case, that seems relatively harmless.
    - mos_basik 10y ago
      I've definitely seen the acronym POC - people of color - used by awareness advocates in a non derogatory way. I don't think GP's usage is terribly archaic.
- mi100hael 10y ago
  Excuse me xir, but I'm offended by your implication that people with limited funds don't possess the capacity to make informed decisions as a consumer. Your comment is quite classist.

It's funny to see the AARP working together with EFF and Mozilla.

by wsha 10y ago

It's funny to see the AARP working together with EFF and Mozilla.

A friend of mine is a Brand Ambassador for AARP and they are working to reverse this exact perception. She teaches "technology" classes -- basically, how to use a tablet/smartphone -- to seniors.

woofyman 10y ago

Why? The AARP foundation is involved in all areas of consumer protection since many retired people have limited funds. http://www.aarp.org/aarp-foundation/our-work/legal-advocacy/afl-docket-consumer-and-utilities.html http://www.aarp.org/aarp-foundation/our-work/legal-advocacy/... Your comment comes across as ageist. Edit: surprising rather than funny would have been a better adjective.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
michaelt 10y ago
Why? It's a little surprising because a lot of advocacy groups focus their resources on problems with a significantly disproportionate impact the people they represent, and it's not obvious at first glance why this issue would disproportionately impact retired people. Coloured people and gun owners also print things out, but I don't see NAACP or NRA putting their names on this amicus brief :) Still, when it comes to supporting common sense amicus briefs like this one I say the more the merrier! If NAACP and NRA want to sign the brief too, let them :)
- legodt 10y ago
  Holy shit, did you just say "colored people" in 2017? That's not cool, anymore, dude
  - gknoy 10y ago
    I suspect it was a deliberate usage based on the expansion of the NAACP acronym, rather than a term one would normally use. In _this_ case, that seems relatively harmless.
  - mos_basik 10y ago
    I've definitely seen the acronym POC - people of color - used by awareness advocates in a non derogatory way. I don't think GP's usage is terribly archaic.
mi100hael 10y ago
Excuse me xir, but I'm offended by your implication that people with limited funds don't possess the capacity to make informed decisions as a consumer. Your comment is quite classist.