If it was a “senior and handicapped priority” seat it’d be fine, but literally not letting anyone else sit on it is messed up.
Comment on Only boomers can use this bench. Meanwhile, they're trying to get rid of their own property taxes.
southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 6 hours ago
Wait, so we’re supposed to have walkable cities and towns to minimize vehicle use, but we can’t also have the equivalent of handicapped parking for the folks that need it most?
I’m not sure what’s infuriating about this. It’s exactly the same principle as handicapped parking, and there should be more of these.
Yeah, ideally you’d have enough benches around so that everyone can cop a squat as needed/wanted. But let’s be fucking real here, a healthy, able bodied person in their twenties or thirties isn’t going to need a seat as often.
Also, fuck that boomer stupidity. We’re supposed to make a world that allows our elderly to have freedom of access and personal mobility. Idgaf what empty headed shit you have against actually baby boomers, we are all going to get old, die, or die before getting old. It’s about fucking supporting each other when we’re in need. Today’s boomers? Well, you’ll be them in fifty years and looking back at this and think “holy fuck, I wish I had a place to sit before trying this next block” this shit helps you, your mother, your uncle, and eventually your kids.
Gtfo with your ablist, ageist shit
pruwybn@discuss.tchncs.de 4 hours ago
StumblingWasabi@lemmy.today 5 hours ago
How about put the bench there, and then if people are using it to the point the disabled and elderly can’t use it, add the sign. I get what your saying comparing it to handicapped parking, but IMO it’s a false equivalent. I’ve personally never seen a parking lot that was handicapped parking exclusively and people park there cars and can leave them there for hours as opposed to sitting on a bench for ~5-10 minutes at a bench and since you are physically present, you can get up of someone needs the spot more.
pulsewidth@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
What a reactionary zealot response.
This is a dumb exclusionary policy being fairly pointed out, not ageism.
I’ll explain it with a comparision of the language used.
The language used for benches like this in my country, Australia: “Priority seating. Please stand for seniors, pregnant, or handicapped people”.
Priority, based on needs. Anyone can use it otherwise.
The language used in this sign: “Benches are for seniors are handicapped citizens only”
Exclusionary, based on privilege and needs. If you are old and infirm and a citizen ONLY YOU may ever use this bench, and if you’re not a citizen (tourist, asylum seeker, migrant worker) you can fuck off regardless of your needs. Pregnant women? Who cares, they’re not old and they’re women.
This is not a subtle distinction. This is language used to assert a hierarchy and exclude underclasses, and it’s embedded into every aspect of US society without most people even noticing because they’ve never seen different.
southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 3 hours ago
Handicapped citizens is a term used to be neutral in most places, nor exclusionary for non citizens