7 ms·
It's not ageism, people deciding the future of your country shouldn't already have a foot in the grave Just look at Trump and Biden speeches VS Bush or Obama
by lm28469 1y ago
It's not ageism, people deciding the future of your country shouldn't already have a foot in the grave
Just look at Trump and Biden speeches VS Bush or Obama
- wqugugqhugqhuh 1y ago[dead]
- lazide 1y agoThat’s like literally saying someone going off on someone because of their skin color (exclusively) isn’t being racist. It’s in the definition. Words have meaning.
- lm28469 1y ago[flagged]
- lazide 1y agoIt is, literally. Just because it’s legal doesn’t change what it is.
- lm28469 1y agoOK so let's say it's ageism, why should I care again? If your president can barely finish a coherent sentence and literally pisses in a plastic bag strapped to his leg I don't care how you call it but I want none of it Same reason I don't leave my newborn baby alone with my 95 years old grandma who has dementia, call it ageism if you want, I call it basic common sense
- lazide 1y agoAgeist is thinking the reason it’s a bad idea to leave a baby with your grandma is because she’s 95 - not because she has dementia. Which she could also have had at 50. Or even 35. Yes, early onset dementia is a thing.
- lm28469 1y agoCognitive functions start to slowly decline after 50, and rapidly after 70 All I'm saying is that people in charge should have their full cognitive capabilities, see it's not ageism anymore!
- lazide 1y agoMake a test, and I bet you more folks than you expect would pass. then it’s not ageism.
- tjwebbnorfolk 1y agoCongratulations, you've labeled something. What's your point?
- lazide 1y agoThat words have meanings. I thought I was pretty clear about it?
- tjwebbnorfolk 1y agoOk so you're saying it's "ageist" to point out that marriage between 7-year-olds is a bad idea. Fine. But is saying that's "ageist" have any purpose in that context? None whatsoever. Words don't always have meaning. Sometimes they are just stuck in places where they serve no purpose in order to irritate people.
- lazide 1y agoStraight to pedophilia/child abuse? You alright dude?
- tjwebbnorfolk 1y agoah, "pedophilia". Good job, you labeled a second thing! Given your attempt to change the subject to my personal emotional state, I take it that you have no actual thoughts or insights to offer.
- prewett 1y agoIt's usually used as a slur, though. Not letting 3 year olds drive is changing behavior based on age, but sometimes you should be treating people differently based on some external attribute they cannot help. If most people a certain age do not meet the minimum requirements for the task (such as being able to see over the steering wheel and having a good judgement about rapidly changing situations), it is not "ageism" to say they cannot do something. Banning 3 year olds from driving is different than only hiring under-40 software developers.
- lazide 1y agoI bet plenty of managers/owners could make arguments about the over-40 group, like unwillingness to work stupid hours, whatever random tech stack they want, etc.
- navbaker 1y agoThe difference for purposes of the conversation happening here is skin color absolutely does not affect cognition where age definitely does.
- lazide 1y agoPlenty of 12 year old morons, and 90 year old razor sharp professors, as counter examples. Either way, those same old folks are the ones who’d need to sign off on the rules banning their existence and I don’t see them doing that. So who are the idiots exactly? Personally, I think it’s the folks who think more rules will make a difference against someone who is explicitly great at violating rules and getting away with it. While pretending to be a moron.
- lm28469 1y agoAh alright, let's not do anything about anything ever then. Criminals still do crimes, so obviously laws are useless am I right ?
- lazide 1y agoMy point is actually enforce the god damn rules instead of making more bullshit rules that only get enforced against people without power.
- CamperBob2 1y agoMother Nature has made this particular rule, and you can only fool her for so long. 80+ year old people do not belong in positions of power, any more than 8-year-olds do. They should step aside and let the next generation take responsibility for their own future. (Or rather make them take responsibility, in the case of voters who insist on electing Trumps, Reagans, Bidens, and Feinsteins simply because those are the candidates they've heard about, due to their having been around the longest.)
- lazide 1y ago
- seanmcdirmid 1y agoTrump is about the same age as Bush and Clinton, oddly enough, but they were presidents in very different times.
- leptons 1y agoIt has nothing to do with age, and everything to do with corruption, greed, and hate. And that is what a lot of people keep voting for.