This article is effectively a troll, because the terms are not defined, and the term "young" is inherently subjective. Meanwhile, the entire project of reducing people to a set of binary labels is - I was going to say "deeply suspect", but actually I think it's an overtly corrupt and immoral way to view people, because it dehumanizes them.<p>In practical terms, I rather like Marcus Aurelius' take on experience. In Meditations he notes that you don't really know what's going on until you're 40. That holds up. You go through phases of thinking you know (and indeed, you really do know different parts of it) at 15, 25, and maybe you think you're done at 35. But no, there are a few more mistakes to be made! There is a great variety of people, interactions, and error modes. The sheer depravity of people, of ALL people, even ones you'd swear were above it, is astonishing. As is the incredibly capacity for warmth, joy, and heroism. It's like humanity is a movie that's about 40-years long, and you have to watch the whole thing, no matter how good you are at anticipating the plot twists.
This post has a thin veneer of science and a lot of flowery language, but the core argument is a deeply flawed. The author is trying to extrapolate from psychology studies to argue that it’s “ageist” to have additional driving restrictions on teenagers. The source material is deeply cherry-picked to support their argument (in a very strained way) and completely ignores the actual studies that go into these decisions. It’s also ignoring the fact that 16 year olds are inherently beginner drivers, which is perhaps the single biggest reason their licenses are restricted in some locations.<p>The author, who appears to be a teenager, has other posts with titles such as “ Isn't it weird that I am a slave?” and “Teens: the most oppressed identity group?” It’s clear that the author feels a lot of youthful angst, but comparing himself to a slave is quite out of touch and tasteless. There’s also a weird tangent into race-based differences at the end article. This is one of the more bizarre Substacks I’ve come across lately.
>This implies, then, that if it is rational to discriminate against young people, the same science must say that other groups which are protected from discrimination by the State are at least somewhat more mature than young people.<p>There is absolutely no such implication and the rest of the arguments in this article, which use this implication as a premise, become invalid. Other groups that have protection against discrimination do not enjoy said protection on the basis of their maturity or even on the basis of any scientific finding. They enjoy that protection as a fundamental principle, mostly because groups fought for that protection irrespective of any kind of scientific or rational consideration (other than the rational consideration to be protected from violence).
Ageism is weird because yeah age is an inherent thing that you can't change at will. So it's kinda like race. But unlike race, age actually changes, at a rate of 24h/day. So being discriminated for being "too young" will pass and you will suddenly be allowed to drive! Yay! But not being allowed to drive because you're "too old" is permanent. Bye!
tldr, driving laws that restrict when and with who 16-17 year old permit holders can drive with may not be completely rational.<p>Unlike racism, islamophobia, antisemitism, sexism and other forms of bigotry, you will likely outgrow ageism against youth. That's why it (rightfully, in my opinion) doesn't get the same priority as other ism's.<p>The article starts:<p><i>> Is it rational to discriminate against youth as a group, given the liberal, individualistic values of the present society? The common answer is yes, because Science says that young people are immature.</i><p>I sincerely doubt that this is the common answer. Most people will probably say "yeah, I was a fucking idiot when I was 16" or "my teenager really isn't a mature adult yet". They will appeal to their own common sense, not <i>science</i>.