I’m just never going to understand how anyone could read into Norse history and mythology and think: “Wow, all this stuff about racial intermarrying and being hospitable to travellers goes so well with my beliefs about keeping European blood-lines pure, I’m gonna use the symbols of my socially progressive nearly-democratic ancestors to back my obsession with tradition and fascism!”
old people shouldn’t be able to vote after a point when it’s no longer their future… if you don’t have to live with the choices you shouldn’t be allowed to make them
no lol elderly ppl are overwhelmingly affected by decisions on healthcare and social security because they’re the most likely to be disabled and the most dependent on those services… besides how many of those old people are women/people of color (especially women of color in particular…) who weren’t allowed to vote for a large portion of their lifetime on decisions that affected them and their family… does taking away their right to vote sound like a good idea. they have to live with younger ppl messing around with social security and just younger ppl not thinking about them period
A majority of elderly people at some point (would need scientific data to pinpoint when) cannot be considered mentally capable of making legal decisions anymore (due to deterioration of required cognitive skills) especially not for anyone else, at which point the right to vote (and to hold office, lead companies, etc.) should be taken from them, in the same way that we don’t allow children to vote or have businesses larger than a lemonade stand. That only makes rational sense, but most likely won’t ever happen because the irrational old people wouldn’t let it, thereby proving my point.
I get where you’re coming from, but by that definition we’d also have to take away mentally ill peoples’ right to vote as well. And finding out who is still able to make rational decisions and who isn’t would be extremely tedious and complicated.
You misunderstand, I think we should have a universal cut-off point at a specific age where scientific evidence shows that a person can reasonably be presumed to be cognitively too impaired to make certain decisions, especially ones that could affect others, in the same way we have a reasonable cut-off point at which age you’re allowed to start voting (usually 18). Yes, this would lead to some elderly people being unable to vote, hold office, etc. even though they could probably be trusted to, but then, there are also 16 year olds who in fact would be mature enough to vote, etc. as well, who are in de facto the same situation. That’s unfortunate, but every system is imperfect and overall, I’m almost certain that the benefit of such an age-conditioned upper limit to certain civil privileges would outweigh the cost.
P.S.: We do take away mentally ill people’s right to vote. (Don’t know the English term but it’s called “Entmündigung” in German).
Yes, and disability rights activists have fought tooth and nail against the disenfranchisement of people with disabilities. Because PWD are often MOST affected by politics, yet ableist eugenicists such as yourself would have us categorically lose political rights.
I can’t fucking believe this is a serious argument, but I’ll make a few points anyway. A 16-year old who is ready to vote will be able to vote in just two years. Yes, it sucks to have to wait–I was less than a year away from 18 during a major election in my country–but that 16-year old can look forward to a future of enfranchisement. Whereas a senior citizen who loses the right to vote will be PERMANENTLY disenfranchised and forced to live in a society that clearly doesn’t give a shit about them.
Look up rates of elder poverty. Look up elder abuse. Then tell me that elderly people are just big old meanies trying to suppress young people.
You want to exert political power? Try voting yourself and getting involved in the political system. I assure you that a young, non-disabled person has many advantages in doing so when compared to elderly people with disabilities.
Apparently, unbeknownst to me, the release of Starcraft 2 in 2010 was a big deal. It was a big enough deal that my dear Long Suffering Boyfriend (LSB) announced that sleep was for the weak and that as soon as the game was available he was going to play it until he passed out from exhaustion.
I was a new graduate veterinarian at the time, and I was pretty close to passing out from exhaustion most nights. Why anyone would do that to themselves was beyond me.
He’d moved in with me a few weeks earlier. It was wonderful, just being able to coexist in the same home without one of us being expected to be somewhere else by morning. Everything was good, even doing laundry was romantic because all our socks were mixed in together. Ah, young love.
But I was working 12 hours days in the vet clinic, and he was yet to find employment in Tasmania. I generally tried to not take my work home with me, but on this particular occasion a cut, furry face got the better of my as yet un-cynical heart.
I had brought home a little baby bunny, somebody’s new pet who had stopped eating thaat day.
Rabbits, for a number of reasons, can get Gut Stasis. When their intestines stop moving, they stop pooping, they stop eating and…
… they shuffle off this mortal coil.
Part of treatment involved force feeding the rabbit every two hours. I was expecting a long night ahead of me with broken sleep, and an even worse day tomorrow due to exhaustion. All for one adorable bunny.
But along comes my LSB to the rescue. He’s enamored with the tiny bunny, making ‘daaaw’ noises over its little ears and then becoming horrified when I explain that it’s here not for funsies, but because it might die.
He was yet to understand just how often animals die in veterinary medicine.
So I fed the bunny with the syringe, which is a special undertaking for the unprepared. A tiny baby bunny is still capable of being a bratty bunny and fighting the syringe of life-giving food which is being squirted into its mouth. Still, I persisted and fed the little scamp.
Any my LSB thought it was adorable.
After I explained that I would be waking up every two hours to feed the little thing, my dearly beloved offered to feed the bunny himself, since he’d be awake for a while anyway, and set me an alarm two hours after he went to bed. I very gladly accepted.
When I awoke the next morning at my normal time, I initially thought something was wrong, but there was no boyfriend asleep beside me.
He was still playing Starcraft II. The bunny was eating out of a bowl.
He’d fed the little baby bunny at the end of every Starcraft level, approximately once an hour, until the rabbit had got tired of the syringe and started feeding itself instead. And there were three tiny poops in the cage.
My serious friend, that is a very severe problem indeed. While the intuitive answer is to grow a bigger lap, that is not possible for many of us. Fortunately, technology to the rescue!
A chair or lounge featuring a chaise portion, as pictured above, allows you two sit with your legs extended and provide additional cuddle space for cats. An average height human could cuddle up to 6 cats at once with this technology!
If it is you the cats want to cuddle, a large basket is simply not going to cut it. While it’s very sweet of the, safety precautions should be taken to ensure you’re not accidentally smothered in cats.
People get to decide who they do and don’t want to talk to.
Online, part of what that means is that people can block each other. People who don’t want to talk to each other can make the conversation stop.
If someone blocks someone else, all it means is that they’ve decided to stop talking to them. In almost all cases, you have every right to do that.
Blocking someone doesn’t mean you’ve lost an argument. (Similarly, if someone else blocks you, that doesn’t mean you’ve won or that you’re better than them.) It just means that you’ve chosen to stop talking to someone.
There’s nothing wrong with ending a conversation. You don’t have to interact with everyone who wants your attention. You have the right to have boundaries and you have the right to use technology to enforce them.
The only time it’s wrong to block people is if they are entitled to your attention for some reason. That’s rare, and mostly applies to corporations and elected officials.
Blocking is not a punishment or a confession of weakness. It’s a boundary.
Agreed, though the elected officials caveat is an important one. I do think it’s shitty of Donald Trump to block people (surprise surprise). Aside from the fact that he regularly abuses people on Twitter himself, he is (ugh) President and elected to serve all Americans. Not just the neo-Nazis who suck up to him on social media, but all of us. He should have to “listen” to what we say even if he doesn’t like it.
Generally, though, no one is entitled to listen to your crap. For any reason.
Urocyon's Jaunts 2.0 
You must be logged in to post a comment.