this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2026
6 points (75.0% liked)

No Stupid Questions

48634 readers
1000 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

It seems kind of unfair seeing anyone under 18 has no way to decide the future of their country. Which they have more stake on seeing whatever decision happen while they are under 18 will be there for the rest of their life.

top 18 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] HobbitFoot@thelemmy.club 2 points 53 minutes ago

In the USA, it was 21 until the 1970's. It got changed as people pointed out that you could be drafted and forced to die for your country at that age, but you couldn't help choose the people to make that decision. Given than 18 is the age when you legally become a legal adult, it was decided that 18 made a good age to gain the right to vote.

A major argument I've heard around it becoming younger is compulsory education. There is a fear, likely unjustified, that high school teachers would get a lot of control over part of the voting block since they would be able to tell students how to vote.

[–] schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 3 hours ago

I live in a country that lowered the voting age to 16 in the 2000s, so I voted in my first election at the age of 16.

I don't think it changed very much at all, 16- and 17-year-olds aren't big enough of a demographic or vote in radically different ways from people slightly older than that.

[–] Apepollo11@lemmy.world 4 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

FWIW, the UK currently has a bill in place that will lower the voting age to 16 before the next General Election (so, before Aug 2029).

I think it'll be a good thing. Young people are a good deal more aware of what's happening in the country than old people are. I mean, the current arrangement has stripped away the housing and career prospects of young people and brought us to the verge of fascism again.

[–] starlinguk@lemmy.world 2 points 34 minutes ago* (last edited 33 minutes ago)

Some states in Germany lowered it to 16. Most of these kids voted AfD (German equivalent of Reform) during the last election.

[–] LastYearsIrritant@sopuli.xyz 12 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

What age would you want to vote? 16? 12? 5?

At some point you're too young to be able to follow and understand what's going on.

Yes, it makes sense that someone who is younger will be impacted more by today's decisions, but you also need to be mature enough to decide.

18 is the compromise age we have mostly collectively decided is the magic number.

[–] birdwing@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 7 hours ago

Varies though, some areas let children from 12 yo and on participate in local decision-making, whereas others have it tied to when one can legally start working.

Some areas put it pretty late, by about 21-25. I even recall that if you want to run for president in the US, you need to be at least 35 years old. Yet there is no maximum age.

[–] wabafee@lemmy.world 1 points 7 hours ago

Apparently 16, based from this research they mentioned that there is not much difference from a young adult. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026137942400009X

[–] DrBob@lemmy.ca 8 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

The issue of when you are an adult is a trickier question than you might imagine. I have written in a previous answer about how children in North America would leave home around 13 or 14. There would be transitional spaces such as rooming houses or boarding houses before they were fully Independent, but they were fully functional "adults" by 15 or 16.

You can see this in the coming of age rituals for various cultures. The bar/bat mitzvah at age 13, the quinceanera at 15, the sweet sixteen for white folks. I do note that many of these are female centered and signal availability for dating/marriage. Boys just became men without much ceremony.

We still have a gradual introduction of rights and privileges with age. In my jurisdiction courts will consider a child's wishes in divorce starting at age eight. You can be charged with a crime at age 12, you can work for wages at 14, you can drive at 16, vote at 18. Alcohol consumption is 19 where I live but is 18 in many parts of the country.

So why 18? It matches up with other markers of maturation like graduation from high school. Could it be 17? Probably. Should it be 16? Possibly. But 18 used to be an age of independence. You could expect to be leaving home and starting a life separate from your parents. That has certainly changed. If we were to keep things in alignment maybe we should push the age back into the mid-20s? 😆

[–] AskewLord@piefed.social 4 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

teenage adolescence as a concept didn't exist until the late 19th, early 20th century. large a byproduct of the creation of public education systems.

and in the 21st century was are certainly expanding it into your 20s, for sure. I met plenty of folks in their 30s or older who are still totally dependent on their parents financially and emotionally.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

yeah problem with this notion is a party could eliminate large swatches of the right to vote with folks just by acting like douches and letting wealth disparity run rampant.

[–] AskewLord@piefed.social 2 points 20 minutes ago* (last edited 19 minutes ago) (1 children)

rich people don't have much of an issue with that though. where i live lots of rich liberal progressives eagerly talk about banning people from voting based on education level and wealth level. they basically think you shouldn't have a political voice unless you making 100K and have a college degree. which is pretty similar to what conservatives want too.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 2 points 16 minutes ago

I get the frustration with dealing with stupidity but yeah we know historically that you simply cannot tie it to things like that as it is to easy to manipulate. I recall some country required a college degree to run for office and then like the pres put pressue on institutions to revoke peoples degrees.

[–] FriendOfDeSoto@startrek.website 5 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

It used to be different for men and women too. That's after the women got the vote in the first place. Switzerland famously only did that in the 70s. With some women being against that. But I digress.

For men, voting age was closely linked to legal adulthood once it wasn't tied to land ownership or similar any more. Societies the world over have sort of agreed that 20-23 is about the age for that. With social progress since the 70s, it was lowered to 18. In the US because of Vietnam where 18yo were old enough to die senselessly in Nam but not old enough to elect the government that sent them there. That was unfair and addressed. In Europe, a lot of countries changed everything to 18 (drinking, voting, driving - don't do it in that order though) from the 60s onwards. And some subdivision elections (local or state level) are today from 16 in the EU.

So the question is more like why are you an adult at 18 as far as the law is concerned. That's a compromise societies have arrived at over time and often copied from one another.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 2 points 35 minutes ago

I rarely upvote comments but I feel you hit on the key concept. What is expected of the individual. If they are expected to contribute to society like with the draft then yeah they should be able to vote. You know its kinda funny to because if you look at the drafts they started at 21 a lot of times which is the drinking age so I wonder if 21 was more standardized but we started dipping to 18 on a regular basis where it was like. yeah we gotta move this over. seems like they kinda should have moved the drinking age to.

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 5 points 7 hours ago (2 children)

A hundred years ago an argument could have been made for 16-year-olds being allowed to vote. The voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 following the First World War.

Today? Not a chance. High school kids can't be bothered to read two paragraphs for school, if they can read beyond a forth-grade level, that is. They get all of their information from social media, and are easily influenced by it.

[–] Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 9 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

"Fourth-grade level

Haha (sorry, that was too easy)

Yea, it requires an educated populace - even at 18 I had no fucking clue who to vote for, and I knew it at the time.

[–] LuminousLuddite@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago

I was 18 in 2016 and I was a Bernie Bro all the way. No other politician has had a bigger impact on my political leanings and worldview.

[–] edgemaster72@lemmy.world 5 points 7 hours ago

Unfortunately that last paragraph describes much of the eligible voting population in the US as well