408
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
408 points (99.0% liked)
News
23296 readers
3220 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Get ready for an unpopular opinion: Old age should not be a basis on which someone is disqualified from holding office.
Why not? Because it is wrong to cast aspersions on someone because of something they did not choose. It remains appropriate to only qualify people for elected office if they are old enough, because we want people to have enough perspective and life experience, and that is directly related to being old enough.
Pretending we dont decline mentally past the age of 80 is a very stupid take.
These are the people who lead our communities. We need them to be in peak mental health.
Then disqualify people on the basis of mental decline.
And we've seen how well that's been working for aging boomer politicians...
Look at Feinstein. They literally had to pry that seat from her cold dead fingers.
Ideally, you're correct and I would agree. Unfortunately, that's not how it works in reality.
I'll counter with the example of Bernie Sanders, who is 82 years old, still sharp as a tack, and arguably the furthest left person in the federal government. Jimmy Carter is 99 years old, and while I know we're not hearing much from him anymore, he's been an incredible force for good well into his nineties. (Yes, I know he hasn't held elected office since early 1981, but he damned well could have, and done it well.)
Yes, Feinstein should have retired a very long time ago, not because of her age, but because of her mental decline.
The way to avoid that, and to respect individual differences, is with standardized periodic testing, which I would support for sure.
Of course, standardized testing. Thats never failed categorically to assess entire generations on a grand sweeping scale.
And yet you think an arbitrary age line is more reliable?
Yes. Every time, 100%, yes.
You shouldnt be in power at that age. Your body is either failing, beginning fail, or could fail within minutes.
Lets even set aside the massive mental degredation, of which the outliers are few and far far far between. Hows your heart? Your liver? Your thyroid? How many politicians have to have sneaky hidden surgeries and procedures to hide their failing bodies from the public? (Spoiler, its a lot)
These people are supposed to lead nations. Thats like trusting the lead sled dog pulling life saving supplies across the tundras of the north to the 20 year old husky who is missing an eye and a hind leg.
This isnt even about disabilities. You cannot out-fit the passage of time. Your body cant out juke aging. And we know the human limits are sputtering out by that point regardless of your natural levels of ability.
They. Dont. Need. That. Power. They need to retire, care for their health, and enjoy their final years. They dont need to hoard power like some pathetic sniveling dragon guarding a pile of gold.
The only reason we dont have that no brainer limit already is because the walking mummies arent willing to give up their thrones. Because they crave power. Which is proof they do not deserve it, and need to go.
OK.
I like the idea of competency being the deciding factor, but you do you.
How do you establish competency when the people you are measuring are the people putting the test on, grading it, choosing its metrics, and who define competency as "the thing Im doing right now, thank you very much"?
Youre arguing for a vapid ideal that relies on politicians to not be politicians while they appraise themselves and one another.
You basically want to give them a political cudgel to weaponize against political enemies because the concept gives you the warm and fuzzies.
So we don't have ANYONE under your arbitrary line with enough experience and power to set such competency standards? No one at all?
On second thought, fuck you.
This would be a law. Politicians make, set, and edit laws.
Anyone put into place could and would be replaced by politicians who wanted to make sure they pass the test.
Youre relying on human failibility, and emotional weight. Your last sentence reinforcing that.
You know what cant be bribed, blackmailed, or replaced by a politician without the public noticing? A hard line defined by the passage of time.
But youve clearly run out of reasons to back your idea.
I think we all like that idea better. In an ideal world. In reality, it just doesn't work.
Or we can disqualify them based on "we know youre declining because of basic biological fact, and you dont need to be so fucking obsessed with power that you cling to it at 80 fucking years old, step down and retire."
How so?