You can tell that you live in a society that’s about to totally collapse when you see signs like this.
Only boomers can use this bench. Meanwhile, they're trying to get rid of their own property taxes.
Submitted 6 hours ago by sanitation@lemmy.today to mildlyinfuriating@lemmy.world
https://lemmy.today/pictrs/image/2ebdf694-fcc6-46d2-b381-38a33523b748.jpeg
Comments
obvs@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
Or what? You get a ticket if you’re not old enough? If you have a problem with not enough benches for everyone, maybe just make more benches? Not like they are expensive.
DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
$1500 plus installation and ongoing cleaning and maintenance, plus each one probably adds to insurance.
Better use of tax revenue than hiring another cop, though. In fact they could afford more benches if they fired a couple of cops, that would be a good trade.
StumblingWasabi@lemmy.today 2 hours ago
Or suggest they don’t spend money they don’t have on flock mass surveillance cameras
southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 3 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
pulsewidth@lemmy.world 52 minutes 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 45 minutes ago
Handicapped citizens is a term used to be neutral in most places, nor exclusionary for non citizens
pruwybn@discuss.tchncs.de 1 hour ago
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.
StumblingWasabi@lemmy.today 2 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.
Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 3 hours ago
Where I live they also have housing exclusive to 55+ so it’s much cheaper since there’s a smaller market for them.
Ruins the housing economy and then holds some that’s only available for themselves for cheap while they downsize for a massive nestegg.
spaghettiwestern@sh.itjust.works 57 minutes ago
Is it a problem that the 55+ housing lowers prices of other housing in the area, or that seniors are selling their old homes and actually keeping the money from the sale?
Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 16 minutes ago
In the area I live in there’s a lot of places 55+ so it limits the amount of housing in the city available to working class people and those trying to raise families, increasing their housing prices. The community has a lot of old folks.
HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 1 hour ago
It is generally cheaper where I live because towns have to build affordable housing and it is considered more acceptable to have poor elderly people than poor people with children.
jumping_redditor@sh.itjust.works 43 minutes ago
it should be more acceptable to be poor and childless than to drag someone into thw world without a way to support them.
Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca 1 hour ago
The 55+ areas where I live are generally little rancher communities or apartments, some are low income type apartments but many are also luxury type apartments.
I could understand if the apartments or ranchers were built with accessibility in mind like shower bars and taller toilets, etc.
But mostly it’s just because they don’t like screaming children playing in the neighbourhood.
TIEPilot@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
Whats the age are you considered a “senior”? I got the handicap part already, so thats nice…
(it actually sucks, but I make the best of it)
BradleyUffner@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
4th year of highschool
TIEPilot@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
Yeah yeah yeah you’re technically correct :)
mrmisses@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
I think it’s 55
TIEPilot@lemmy.world 5 hours ago
Dang almost there… Where do the years go eh?
possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 5 hours ago
Many boomers are struggling to make ends meet
Duhtocqueville@ttrpg.network 3 hours ago
You mean “ends seat?”
wreckedcarzz@lemmy.world 4 hours ago
I’m disabled, but I’ll gleefully cut the sign down and piss all over it in broad daylight. Anybody tries to stop me and it becomes a piss-coated harpoon. Every day if necessary, until they get the message.
That level of petty bullshit goes right back where it came from. I’m not at all opposed of going lower than my opponent - wtf are they going to do, try to get public and legal support for harassing a disabled person? Lmao
svdasein@lemmy.world 6 hours ago
I think we may have bigger fish to fry these days; billionaires love it when little people fight amongst themselves. It’s high comedy because in the mean time they’re well on their way to owning everything.
pulsewidth@lemmy.world 56 minutes ago
I disagree wholeheartedly. 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 and 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.
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 your society without most people even noticing because they’ve never seen different.
halcyoncmdr@piefed.social 2 hours ago
You’re not wrong… But the crossover age range of the vast majority of billionaires and seniors is a damned circle, it’s both a class and age thing simultaneously. Boomers are usually defined as those born between 1946 and 1964, so that age range would be 62-80 as of 2026.
And that ignores the much larger number of them that are under a billion but still well on their way up towards it. In practicality, there’s little difference between 100 million and a billion despite it being 90% less.