Removed by mod
Let’s stop being ageist.
Removed by modThe assumption that old people are inherently right wing and young people are inherently left wing is just wrong. Correlating age with political beliefs is a fucking pseudoscience, and so is the whole concept of generations like boomers and zoomers. Their marketing terms, the baby boom was a uniquely United States thing and to apply that term to 20 odd years of people from across the world is just factually wrong. We got to stop self identifying with these terms because they are ageist and they divide us and they allow for shitty excuses like “it’s just their generation” to excuse shitty behavior.
What’s the point of this? Stop dunking on old people. Old people aren’t inherently reactionary.
Nah, you're old. You just don't have the life experience to understand that the body is deteriorating.
You don't just wake up one day with backpain or worse vision. It's a long slow process but it largely starts when you're 18-19. After that, your life has already been lived and you're old.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Please define this word for me, because I don't think we think it is the same word.
Smokes weed during philosophy class once:
You're saying this like it is some kind of truth but it is just entirely subjective, and frankly harmful sort of rhetoric. I would find it horribly discouraging if it wasn't so counter to my beliefs and understanding of physiology.
How about this hot take: We are about more than reproduction. Human society is enriched by having both young and old present, and adulthood doesn't kill your soul, capitalism does.
Removed by mod
I can't tell if this is some mind body dualist idealism or vulgar materialism, but it's wrong either way.
Taking an example you made in a previous comment:
This would at least make some sense if you were saying the "soul" becomes antagonistic to the body after someone has children, or if you are implying that most people reproduce by 20. It would still be wrong, but at least the analogy would work.
Going against your point more broadly, it hyperfocuses on the individual in evolution without considering the species more broadly. People contribute to society in such a way that increases the chance other people to successfully reproduce, regardless of whether or not one has personally reproduced.
It makes no sense to say that the body killing the "soul" would increase its evolutionary advantage.
So long as you are speaking in mystical terms of a "soul" and not understanding that what can be observed of that "soul" is the product of the very same body you disparage, this rhetoric is worthless for anything but reaction.
It is moronic to say someone about a quarter through their life has "already lived their life". Are you listening to yourself?
"Someone should have told Marx he was dead 40 years sooner; idk why we are reading the writings of someone who was long dead when he wrote them."