this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2024
673 points (97.2% liked)
Asklemmy
44165 readers
1623 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy π
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Not understanding the difference between pre and post 9/11 politics
Hate to break it to you but people born in 2006 are turning 18 this year (and are technically considered "adults").
Having just turned 43, I can tell you that I donβt think I became an adult until my early/mid 30s.
This is a truth that everyone under 30 denies until the day they turn 30. Itβs like a magic spell is suddenly broken, and you realize youβre alone in an aging meat husk that now knows the glory of back pain.
I know a young person will read this and think this wonβt happen to them. To that person: I am you from the future. Remember us as we were.
I rather thought "Huh, 30s is still young."
I have no illusions anymore that this pattern wonβt repeat. I enjoy my back pain for what it is: the pre-hip pain era.
I think it's kinda like the old dating age formula; you can date people (your age) / 2 + 7 years old, and you feel like that's the age of an adult.
When I was 15 I felt like ann adult, but people younger than me were teens. When I was 25 I felt like an adult but people under the age of like 20 were just kids. Now I feel like people in their early/mid-20s are just about adults. I'm sure when I'm 50 I'll think back to myself now and consider myself barely an adult.
I'm 27 and I think I'm there already
I thought that too. I regret to report: it gets worse.
That's a relief!
I'm 40 and it seems like I can continually look back at myself from five years ago and think damn I was an idiot back then. I wonder how I will feel in five years...
Wow, you're me!
That assumes you live in one of a small number of countries for which politics significantly shifted after one of those countries was attacked.
And also that you're at least old enough to have had a reasonable mature understanding of the political landscape before 2001, so as to appreciate how things changed. Let's assume that'd make you at least 20.
...So, we have to be at least 43 years old, and American, or you'll assume we're children?
To actually understand you'd have to have been following politics pre 9/11, which would make you probably 16 at the time. That means 39 right now. That's a lot of adults you're ruling out.
If you want to say understand society pre and post 9/11, then you're probably talking 12 at the time, so 35 right now. Still a lot of adults you're ruling out.
Bad assumption, a localized event doesn't affect everyone in the world equally.
So, uh, what is the difference?
I was alive for 9/11 and I don't know the difference.
I don't care for politics.
Your sphere of control should match your sphere of concern; and neither of those things are what you think they are.
You think politics are in my control in any way, shape, or form? They've gerrymandered my vote to irrelevance.
I still vote, I look at the platforms and vote for whomever I feel serves my interests the most, not that the party's platform means jack or shit. They're all just pandering to whatever they know you want to hear, and once they get into power, they do whatever the hell they want.
My district leans a particular way, and whether I vote with them, or against them, the same party is elected to govern. I'd say my vote is pretty useless in that context.
I was too young to vote, pre-9/11, and had even less interest in politics than I do now. I've vaguely followed along since I got registered to vote when I got old enough to do so, but it's not like learning about what happened before I was registered to vote will help me in any way. I make the best choice based on the information that is available, and in the end, it doesn't even matter.
Could anyone persuade you to vote on what's better for most people instead of what's better for yourself? Maybe it's the same policies maybe not.
I usually want whatever is best for the majority. I'm done college, and I paid my student loans, I'll vote for student loan forgiveness and a restructuring of that system so others don't have to go through what I did.
I'm pretty healthy and rarely need hospitals but universal healthcare is something that everyone should have.
I would also vote for UBI, though I would get no benefit from it, as I've been employed pretty much non-stop since I left college.
I would also vote to raise the minimum wage, though my salary is significantly amount the minimums.
My principles are in line with what most people would consider to be the greater good for all people. I believe in true equality, and I don't feel like that's what we have, some people just aren't given the same basic rights, especially in America with roe v. Wade being overturned. Bodily autonomy and the right to love, and marry whomever you want. I don't believe in lowering the bar to give the illusion of things being "fair", eg, allowing people who are otherwise mentally or physically incapable of doing a job, to do the job just because they're a particular race, gender, or something else (making it more about who they are than whether they're the best fit for a job).
I don't think I need any convincing to vote for what's good for someone else.
Agreed, we are like minded in many ways. Thanks for the kind and long response. I believe your earlier comments were being taken by myself and others as fuck everyone I'll get/I've got mine. Sorry I don't mince words at the moment.
No apology needed. No offense taken.
I know that text replies, especially terse ones can be interpreted in many ways. Often I tend to be rather verbose to get my point across accurately. Some then complain about the verbosity of my replies.
It's a struggle to find the right amount of terse while being verbose enough to not be misunderstood.
Not at least understanding the difference seems irresponsible.
Who needs an informed electorate anyway?
Why? How does knowing how politics worked before I could vote, help me as a voter today?
I understand enough about politics to cast my vote and beyond the act of voting, I generally don't follow politics. I vote based on party platforms (what they intend to do) and the likelihood of those things happening. Eg, if a party was to say that they'll make everyone rich, I would consider that statement to be delusional, unrealistic and not something that could be fulfilled even if that party was voted in. This is an extreme example, but I think you get my meaning.
Beyond doing my due diligence in figuring out who I want to vote for, and then voting for that party.... What else do I realistically need?
My district always elects the same party anyways, whether I vote for them or not. I've landed in a gerrymandered location and that party basically always wins, but I still vote regardless.
IMO, I shouldn't need to take a political history course to be considered to be a responsible voter.