this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2023
81 points (91.8% liked)
Out of the loop
10989 readers
106 users here now
A community that helps people stay up to date with things going on.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think "she was senile and should've retired" is being profoundly gentle. She should have retired decades ago, and she should have spent her most recent term in hospice. She's an even more potent symbol than Mitch McConnell of how pathetically, worthlessly, disgustingly, pointlessly geriatric our government is.
Presumably she kept getting re-elected every 6 years, no? I know that's not a good enough reason for her to justify running, but what's a democratic solution that isn't also ageist?
If someone has freak genes, or sufficiently advanced technology to remain in perfect health physical and mentally at (ex.) 150 years old, we wouldn't want laws that say, "sorry, people past 80 are generally senile, so you're not allowed to run".
I feel like if the people don't want a 90yo senator, then they shouldn't elect an 85yo candidate, and we can't do much better than that. This is also why we have so many redundant representatives, one bad one shouldn't be capable of sinking the whole ship.
I do. We have laws that say "Sorry, people under are usually stupid, so you're not allowed to run" Not everyone under the age should be denied the right to run/vote, but we decide as a society when someone has lived enough to make choices. Why is it so hard to do the same for an upper age?
I think you accidentally an age, but I get your point.
The difference is that we have scientific evidence that demonstrates categorically, without any outliers, that humans below a certain age do not have fully developed brains. On the flip side, we don't have any scientific evidence that necessitates that a human loses their mental faculties after a certain age. Anecdotally, my great grandmother lived to 104, was living in her own house the entire time, and could hold a coherent conversation about the early 1900s no problem (up until the last year or two). In her 90s she legitimately said, "what's wrong with me, all of my friends are dead, why am I still fine?"
Meanwhile, not only has life expectancy been constantly rising over the last few hundred years, but scientists are actively trying to slow or even reverse aging in humans. It's perhaps unlikely, but not impossible for humans to unlock immortality at some point in the near future.
Point being, you can't say anything is necessarily true about all adults after a certain age, just like you can't say anything is necessarily true about
/insert race/. So it would be the definition of ageism.What you really want is some kind of aptitude test to verify that they are still minimally capable of doing their job, but for the same reason that's not used to admit people to vote, you can never be certain that the test doesn't introduce a bias thereby disenfranchising people. So I really think the best we can do is a democracy...something better than first past the post would probably help though.
Edit: btw, i think I see now how you missed an age. Apparently things in angle brackets just get deleted :/
The solution is the dissolution of the private corporations deciding how the main (read: only) two parties in our country operate. Dianne only won because she was the Democratic candidate, and she got that because the DNC made it so. If there were more rigorous competition, I'm quite sure she would've been replaced a long time ago.
There's nothing I can say to disagree, I think this answer is spot on. It serves as a perfect example of the difference between a functioning democracy and where we currently are.
"What if fictional technology" isn't a particularly compelling argument in my book.
I mean, that's the essence of all science fiction, virtually all of which are increasingly relevant every year.
But it's not even necessary for you to understand my argument. There's nothing that necessitates that a human loses their mental faculties beyond a certain age. To arbitrarily draw a line would be the definition of ageism.
You know...I'm fine with that.
Beyond the fact your brain becomes feeble with age, there's also the practical fact that there are people in congress who haven't set foot inside a classroom since the fucking Eisenhower administration. Some of them graduated high school before plate tectonics was discovered or the transistor was invented. Here's a question for ya: Should high school diplomas or college degrees expire?
Again, not a fact. People can and do live beyond 100 without losing any mental faculties. What you mean to say is that, at the current time, as humans age, there is a high probability of them developing illnesses that result in mental degradation. That's not the same as saying "it is a fact that your brain becomes feeble with age".
I agree, that's much more relevant.
Maybe, maybe not. Either way, if the goal is to maintain a democratic system that isn't designed to induce bias or favoritism of any class over another, then level of education should never be used as a legal requirement to run for political office. That is called an aristocracy. That's not to say the job doesn't have any minimum requirements; the voters are the ones interviewing and hiring for the position, and if education is important to them, they should prioritize it in the voting booth.
IMO if a democracy fails because the voters are too stupid, then it just wasn't meant to be.
Remember kids! It's not the fault of the consumers/voters/people, it's the evil, uh, capitalists/Boomers/whatever. We need systemic change that forces personal responsibility and choice!
Then lemmy tells me the same people can topple capitalism and all get along as communists. And then they whine about how old people run everything because they vote.
Reminds me of my fatass friend standing at the bottom of the stairs hollering for a doughnut because it hurt her to walk upstairs.