Why would anyone think 16 year-olds should be allowed to vote?

[MsAmerica]

Be honest - think back to when you were 16. Did you have an understanding of a broad range of issues? Did you pay serious attention to national news? Okay, even many adults may lapse on the score, but still, it seems crazy to me.

In the U.S., voting age had been 21 and the only reason it was lowered to 18 was that teens were being drafted to fight in Vietnam, and it was felt as unfair for them to have no say.

No, is not correct at all.... in fact its rather ignorant.

With smart phones, "thick fingers" and auto correct, do you always send perfect emails/messages etc?

But instead of either ignoring or dealing with the substance of the post, you home in on her spelling..

Thats just unnecessary & adds nothing to the thread + so what if she is from America or has spent time there?

I'm sure there are plenty of posters who originate from Australia, Europe etc etc is it against MN talk guidelines? does it make their views any less valid?

This thread was started by a poster called MsAmerica

My reply was to your comment that "that's usually all they have". I disagree. I usually have a fair bit more to say on most things other than how people spell words. In fact, I don't recall having ever picked up on someone's spelling before. But on this occasion I did due to the poster's rude tone.

She's not offensive, unlike the rude poster. And I picked up on the poster's spelling simply because she was rude.

Do. I love wasting other people's time as much as the next person.

One of the first things i ve noticed, across many threads, is once the right wing argument is shown to be false, the insults and/or condescension usually start.

Whats wrong with "Boomers" or to give it full name "Baby Boomers" & "Right wing" ?

Btw i fall into this age group too, i don't consider Boomer an insult, not all voted for Brexit or right wing.

I disagree. Using 'boomer is an ageist slur, tarring an entire group with the same brush. I don't use it for that reason, nor do I use 'Karen'.

There is a poster on a thread about Palestine, protests and the legalities who is using yhe term 'middle aged white woman' to shut down discussion. It's lazy and cheap.

I am Gen X.

I dont really think there is much difference between Labour and Conservative these days to know what a "right wing" argument is. For example, is limiting immigration into the UK a "right wing" or a "left wing" policy? If there's not much difference how do you know which side of the spectrum is (allegedly) being condescending to you?

Personally I was very politically aware at that age. Campaigning g etc. maybe slightly more idealistic, but I was well aware what was happening in the world and what causes I thought important. I would have relished the chance to vote, tbh. And I knew many others like myself. Maybe the younger generation are still like this, to a point? I would hope that they may be aware of what is important to their own futures - global warming, wars etc, and therefore may want the chance to make a difference (I knew I did, hence campaigning important issues etc).

Tbh, looking at the state of the country I can’t see how they could possibly be more ignorant than many of the adult voters 🤷🏼‍♀️

Since I (rather cynically I admit) don't believe that UK political parties ever keep their electoral promises no I would not 'be all over them so they can't win'.

Who I voted for or didn't vote for is nothing to do with this debate, there are people of all political persuasions who agree or don't agree with the proposal. It is a weak argument to introduce the personal.

There is no perhaps about it, they appear to think they will get support from young people which may or may not turn out to be the case. If the cohort involved is so small why change it in the first place? There are lots of changes that would improve the UK electoral system before this one. PR and making voting compulsory (with the option of having a 'I don't wish to vote for anyone on this list' box so political dissatisfaction can be properly measured to start with.

I really don’t think trawling threads suggesting other people pay more tax is the heroic pastime you think it is, the opposite really. I also don’t think taking the mick out of someone’s spelling is a major crime, especially if they’re just posting stuff they read on the Guardian without giving it any thought.

Boomer was definitely being used as a slur in this instance
.
The whole quote was "Someone has to drown out the aging right wing selfish boomers"

Which is definitely very rude.

@Quirkswork actually missed out 'selfish' when quoting, which made the quote less rude than it actually was.

The better approach would be to report the post.

Sometimes it's better to let the insults stand.

It shows that those who see themselves as enlightened and morally superior (for wanting to spend other people's money?!) are anything but.

Who is wanting to spend other people's money?

No need to trawl, as i still have a memory.... Spending other peoples money? You lost me there....unless you meant...

....the previous govt took taxation to levels not seen since WW2 and managed to spend 28 billion on a railway they then halted, with huge personal - to the poor people who had their homes demolished for no reason at all - and environmental damage, which has been massive.

Imagine what 28 billion would do for the nations finances now?

You’ve also lost me with ‘spending other people’s money’ . It appears although you quoted exactly what I posted, you have decided to respond to something entirely different.

I ve no idea what you re on about....

You accused me of trawling threads, thinking myself a "hero" and wanting to spend other peoples money....

Now you re denying it & i'm the one in the wrong... if only there was a name for that?

No I didn’t, you quoted exactly what I posted. Please point out where I said you wanted to spend other people’s money.

You are just doubling down on your misrepresentation whilst accusing me of doing it. I’m assuming this what you mean when you say ‘shown right wing argument to be false’.

There's an obvious problem with the extension of the franchise to 16 year olds and that's the Online Safety Act. Which one will the government chose? Because they will have to.

Why?

The Act has been widely drafted to extend beyond pornography. Already a speech in Parliament has been censored. Effectively, 16 year olds will vote with only the kiddie internet to refer to. And politicians and Ofcom will make political decisions as to what 16 year olds can see. It's a pretty obvious conflict.

If they aren't old enough to have an adult Internet then they aren't old enough to have a fully informed vote.

News outlets are not censored or requesting proof of age.

Hansard is also available without proof of age.

Bsky was asking for proof to access certain posts. I have not provided that so does that mean I am now less informed?

How would you know if you were ?