“strawman”

Good for you, I am impressed! Now help us convince all the other democrat voters to do the same and we might actually be able to fix this.

I have not seen many leftists not agree that both votes are for genocide - that’s just a given.

Neither have I. I’ve seen hundreds of liberals argue that fact, though. I’ve had comments deleted elsewhere on Lemmy for “misinformation” for stating that Harris is genocidal.

So I apologise for not sharing your hopeful perspective that we can change the system after the election, because your peers refuse to acknowledge that the system needs to be changed. Perhaps you need to be replying to commenters other than me, because you don’t need to persuade me. Persuade THEM. The rest of the democrat-voting public.

Yet more oppressive shit for no good reason.

Who fucking cares if someone knows, or doesn’t, who, or what, a legislator is? It doesn’t matter. 99.999% of voting adults might just about be able to name the President, but we don’t need them to confirm that. All they need to do is put a mark next to a candidate whom presumably they’ve heard about. Or maybe they haven’t. Who gives a shit? The important thing is that we do not exclude people who do give a shit.

The sort of tests you propose historically have been used to disenfranchise black voters, and you’re just suggesting that they be used to disenfranchise young voters. More phrenology vibes.

Your whole “private poll booth” thing is again just needless and exclusionary. Again, what’s to stop an adult child being coerced into voting a certain way, or an adult with an abusive partner, or even just housemates? All of these people and more are very capable of manipulating others into serving their interests, and yet you are only interested in abridging the rights of children. Maybe we should also force disabled people to come and vote in person, too? And if they can’t, because their wheelchair doesn’t fit, well… at least they weren’t coerced!!

We know a lot about how brains develop, what parts of the brain do what, and so on

I’m not convinced that we do. We think we know a few things, but a lot of what we “knew” about brains has been proven completely wrong time and time and time again. This is just the latest, wrong, thing. So yeah, phrenology. I’m not interested in it at all.

This obsession with making something which is not measurable (maturity) into something which is (number of days alive on the planet) isn’t helpful. So god knows why we add that extra hoop of “brain development” into there, it’s just yet another unknown unmeasurable.

Okay, cool. Go ahead and state the case, then, if it’s such an obvious fact. Go ahead and say “I will be voting for a genocidal candidate this election, because that is what my country’s political system forced me to do.”

I will be truly impressed if you actually do it.

Most people find some excuse not to. That’s the problem we have.

I’m a leftist. I don’t want you to change whoever you’re voting for, vote what you feel is right.

What I do want you to do is be honest. I believe that the only way we can fix things is to admit the reality of the situation that we’re in.

I want you to admit that you’re voting for a genocidal candidate. Because either way if you’re voting Trump or Harris, you’re voting a genocidal candidate.

Once you can admit that, then we can start thinking about fixing it.

If you’re just going to shove your head in the sand and refuse to acknowledge your complicity in the system, then you are a slave to it.

I disagree with you quite strongly on the topic of elections, I don’t see why being able to demonstrate knowledge of trivia is necessary for being able to express your political preference.

Personally, I would open it to anyone who is interested in voting may do so. There is basically no good reason against this, in my opinion.

Again, the pre-frontal cortex development stuff is as close to pseudoscience as it gets. We don’t really understand how a lot of brain function works, so the entire field absolutely reeks of phrenology to me.

Oh, and what a surprise! It’s being used to justify oppression. Isn’t that fun? Just like good old times!!

I think you misunderstood my point. I am absolutely opposed to genocide and all those who support it.

Again, this argument is extremely weak and fails under even the slightest investigation.

Firstly, the claim that kids brains are developing but adults’ brains aren’t is just factually untrue. Redditors love to repeat a little “factoid” about 25 being the age that the brain matures, but it’s just not true. Everyone develops differently and some people may be functionally mature in their mid teens, others may take much longer. Additionally there’s not really an end point where the brain stops developing, so everyone’s brains are always developing. So now you have to draw a line about, how much development is enough? and that asks the question, how do you measure brain development? And there’s actually not really any good answer to that question.

Even if you had some vague range under which brains are developed, which again, we don’t have - where would you draw a line? Anywhere you put it is going to be arbitrary and exclusionary. If you place it somewhere, let’s say, 18, then ask yourself - is it conceivable that there could be a 17 year old who would be capable and mature enough to take on this responsibility? If your answer is yes, then by making that line 18, you’re being ageist.

99% of all oppressions against young people are not justifiable.

“other people may disagree with me, but it’s only because i am smarter than them, if they were smart like me, they’d agree with me actually”

“Guys, I get it, the Holocaust is bad, but if we vote for Himmler, he will stop it. Hitler will do the holocaust but even more bad!”

Refusing to support genocide is an unrealistic demand, and it also makes you a tankie, despite the fact that tankies are known for refusing to acknowledge historical genocides.

My point was that anyone sensible would immediately see the problem with my suggestion, and that would perhaps lead them to understand why enforcing the same rule against kids is wrong.

And again, I’m sorry, but your reasoning is weak as fuck. Would you take away the rights of someone with an intellectual disability from watching porn or smoking?

Sorry, but that logic is absolute and total bullshit.

Adults are extremely bad at making decisions in their best interests too. Why does the government have to oppress kids to protect them, but you when the exact same logic is applied to adults, that’s a problem?

It’s all oppression. It’s all wrong. Kids should have autonomy too.

If anything, it would be far better to ban people above a certain age from social media. I’ve seen far more older people get sucked in by online misinformation and become extreme conspiracy theorists than kids.

There is little evidence for this claim. As far as I recall, evidence actually shows that things like bullying, harassment and child sexual exploitation are dropping.

I would highly recommend listening to the If Books Could Kill podcast about the book “The Anxious Generation”. I feel like it’s probably one of their weaker episodes, if I’m honest, because they kind of have a preconceived bias against social media, but I think they basically come around to the conclusion that there is basically no compelling evidence that social media is particularly harmful to young people, in a general sense, and that on the whole, it’s also very useful for young people.

This is just yet more oppression of young people dressed up as if it’s for their best interests.

It definitely can, it just has to blur the line a bit to get past the content filter