zlacker

> If you dislike their politics, so be it - donate to campaigns or personally run against them. Write a letter explaining how you'd like them to vote.. But the amount of absolute crass behavior people allow "because it's the internet" is mind boggling.

I don't even think it's "because it's the internet." "In Real Life" political discourse has been getting significantly more and more crass and more and more belligerent in the last 10-15 years. Go over to YouTube and bring up some Reagan-Mondale or Clinton-Bush debates and compare their tone and temperament to what we see today. People still felt strongly about the issues back then, but we weren't so constantly hurling threats and potty-mouth insults all over the place like today.

>>ryandr+(OP)
> Go over to YouTube and bring up some Reagan-Mondale or Clinton-Bush debates and compare their tone and temperament to what we see today.

Reminded me of a fascinating video I recall; Bush and Reagan debate illegal immigration in 1980's primary. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsmgPp_nlok

They sound more liberal than half of today's Democrats.

>>ryandr+(OP)
"In Real Life" political discourse has been getting significantly more and more crass and more and more belligerent in the last 10-15 years.

Just ask Paul Pelosi. IANAL, I don't know what the legal definition of a credible threat is, but I completely empathize with these politicians who might be wary of what someone with the resources of Tan may do directly or incite.

>>ceejay+j1
The positioning to me (which drifts over time) is less interesting than the higher quality of the discourse.

Granted, this was in a smaller venue, but seeing H.W. actually consider the question on the spot and deliver an on-topic, detailed answer outlining his position was... refreshing.

Presumption that the question is valid and interesting, the asker is to be respected, and supporters of the platform espoused and opponents have good points and should be respected.

Empathetic disagreement is not something you typically see anywhere recently. It's been boiled down to staccato sound bites.

>>ryandr+(OP)
When the center repeatedly fails to deliver meaningful reform, the extremes will attempt to fill the void.

>>ryandr+(OP)
We've had things like a sitting vice president kill a secretary of the treasury (and Founding Father) in a duel, over political insults. I make two points with this. The first is that obviously the past was far from some era of restrained gentleman, but the second is that I think words used to have a lot more meaning.

And that's because in modern times we've been rapidly diluting the meaning of basically everything by endlessly resorting to inappropriate hyperbole. This makes it difficult to express things and practically impossible to express an extreme feeling without resorting to the sort of hyperbole that makes hyperbole look restrained, which is what this thread is ultimately about.

It'd be nice if we returned to the era of words having meaning, but the era of the internet probably makes that impossible.

>>ceejay+j1
> They sound more liberal than half of today's Democrats.

As classic liberals, they actually were.

>>s1arti+09
That's cool and all, but I didn't say classical liberalism.

>>ceejay+Q9
Sorry if i wasn't more specific. I was intending to highlight the commonality and overlap between classic liberal philosophy what we identify as modern upper case Liberals.

I think the video does a good job of highlighting how many classic liberals actually had the same tenants and objectives, such as respect, compassion, and human development.

>>somena+W6
Really amusing aside. This article, "Shitshow! Britain’s potty-mouthed parliament", was just published: https://www.politico.eu/article/britains-potty-mouthed-parli...

That stiff upper lip has, perhaps, become a bit more relaxed.