5 ms·

As someone in their mid-twenties, I have to ask the older HNers: has it always been this "stupid," so vitriolic and hateful? If not, when did it become this way

As someone in their mid-twenties, I have to ask the older HNers: has it always been this "stupid," so vitriolic and hateful? If not, when did it become this way?

adventured 9y ago
The Revolutionary War era was as bad or worse than it is today. [1] They spit about as much venom at each other as you possibly could. They said arguably far worse things about each other than have been said about Trump or Obama. There was a bit of comparative calm that settled in, from the immediate time after the Civil War, until the late 1960s. The level of ugliness of ideological attacks that Franklin Roosevelt saw, for example, were nowhere near what Obama & Trump have seen. That century was a far calmer era for political vitriol, than the 1780-1860 time frame, or since the late 1960s. A not amusing Civil War era example: "In 1856, U.S. Sen. Charles Sumner of Massachusetts gave a speech criticizing pro-slavery southerners. Three days later, he was beaten so badly - on the Senate floor - by U.S. Rep. Preston Brooks of South Carolina that he didn’t return to the Senate for three years." [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/09/the-origins-of-todays-bitter-partisanship-the-founding-fathers/244839/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/09/the-ori...
ams6110 9y ago
It has, but it's never been so easy to spout off to the world before, or be instantly informed about what other people are thinking. In the 1980s the media hated Reagan about as much as they hated Bush or Trump. Before that it was Nixon. But you really only heard about it if you watched the evening news, and that was 30 minutes of the day. It wasn't being fed to you continuously like an intravenous drip on your phone. It's the speed and pervasiveness that have increased, not so much the partisanship.
- tim333 9y ago
  I'd disagree and say through the Bush Clinton Bush Obama period it wasn't as bad. I guess the levels of stupid vitriolic and hateful come and go. The world has definitely gone through worse phases as well, see the 1930s for example.
  - creaghpatr 9y ago
    They probably would have been worse to Bush up front had 9/11 not happened. Blasting the President in the year(s) after 9/11 would have probably been in poor taste through the eyes of the public.
- Slansitartop 9y ago
  > In the 1980s the media hated Reagan about as much as they hated Bush or Trump. Before that it was Nixon. But you really only heard about it if you watched the evening news, and that was 30 minutes of the day. It wasn't being fed to you continuously like an intravenous drip on your phone. While I wasn't mature enough then to form my own opinion about it, I'm under the impression that the media was also more restrained and professional back then. Now it seems a lot more tabloid, generally. There also seems to be a burring between "opinion/editorial" and reporting, especially online, which fuels the polarization.
zeveb 9y ago
I think maybe it has, and each of us doesn't notice it when we're younger and we think that we're really arguing about principles. Before Trump Derangement Syndrome (Russia!) there was Obama Derangement Syndrome (Kenya!); before that there was Bush Derangement Syndrome; before that there was Clinton Derangement Syndrome; before that Reagan Derangement Syndrome (Oliver Sacks even included a bit in his book The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat which alleged that there are people with a neurological condition which causes them to detect lies, who couldn't watch Mr. Reagan speak because everything he said was a lie; if true this would have been quite an amazing discovery …), and so on & so forth. And of course a lot of this wasn't entirely unfounded. Mr. Obama really was the first anti-American president; Mr. Bush really was incompetent; Mr. Clinton really was a perjurer, philanderer, power-abuser & possible rapist; Mr. Reagan really did lie a lot (e.g. Iran-Contra); Mr. Carter really was incompetent; Mr. Nixon really was a crook; Mr. Johnson really was a crook &c. &c. &c. The fact that we keep on electing compromised, power-hungry people to a position of extreme power is no doubt part of the problem, but even back when the presidency was far weaker you had the partisans of Jefferson & Adams maligning one another with language we would be shocked at today. The only recent American president I can think of who was mostly decent was probably Gerald Ford, who never ran for the position. Maybe that's the secret.
paulsutter 9y ago
No it was never this vitriolic or hateful
jessaustin 9y ago
It goes in cycles, but anyone who imagines that e.g. the Civil War wasn't preceded by strong feelings has no sense of history. Keep in mind that decorum and conduct are different things. Since the 1950s, USA has done some awful things, with inconsistent discussion, heated or otherwise. As someone who regrets that history and takes Orwell seriously, I'm glad there are now some cracks in the consensus.

As someone in their mid-twenties, I have to ask the older HNers: has it always been this "stupid," so vitriolic and hateful? If not, when did it become this way?

adventured 9y ago

The Revolutionary War era was as bad or worse than it is today. [1] They spit about as much venom at each other as you possibly could. They said arguably far worse things about each other than have been said about Trump or Obama. There was a bit of comparative calm that settled in, from the immediate time after the Civil War, until the late 1960s. The level of ugliness of ideological attacks that Franklin Roosevelt saw, for example, were nowhere near what Obama & Trump have seen. That century was a far calmer era for political vitriol, than the 1780-1860 time frame, or since the late 1960s. A not amusing Civil War era example: "In 1856, U.S. Sen. Charles Sumner of Massachusetts gave a speech criticizing pro-slavery southerners. Three days later, he was beaten so badly - on the Senate floor - by U.S. Rep. Preston Brooks of South Carolina that he didn’t return to the Senate for three years." [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/09/the-origins-of-todays-bitter-partisanship-the-founding-fathers/244839/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/09/the-ori...

ams6110 9y ago

It has, but it's never been so easy to spout off to the world before, or be instantly informed about what other people are thinking. In the 1980s the media hated Reagan about as much as they hated Bush or Trump. Before that it was Nixon. But you really only heard about it if you watched the evening news, and that was 30 minutes of the day. It wasn't being fed to you continuously like an intravenous drip on your phone. It's the speed and pervasiveness that have increased, not so much the partisanship.

tim333 9y ago
I'd disagree and say through the Bush Clinton Bush Obama period it wasn't as bad. I guess the levels of stupid vitriolic and hateful come and go. The world has definitely gone through worse phases as well, see the 1930s for example.
- creaghpatr 9y ago
  They probably would have been worse to Bush up front had 9/11 not happened. Blasting the President in the year(s) after 9/11 would have probably been in poor taste through the eyes of the public.
Slansitartop 9y ago
> In the 1980s the media hated Reagan about as much as they hated Bush or Trump. Before that it was Nixon. But you really only heard about it if you watched the evening news, and that was 30 minutes of the day. It wasn't being fed to you continuously like an intravenous drip on your phone. While I wasn't mature enough then to form my own opinion about it, I'm under the impression that the media was also more restrained and professional back then. Now it seems a lot more tabloid, generally. There also seems to be a burring between "opinion/editorial" and reporting, especially online, which fuels the polarization.

zeveb 9y ago

I think maybe it has, and each of us doesn't notice it when we're younger and we think that we're really arguing about principles. Before Trump Derangement Syndrome (Russia!) there was Obama Derangement Syndrome (Kenya!); before that there was Bush Derangement Syndrome; before that there was Clinton Derangement Syndrome; before that Reagan Derangement Syndrome (Oliver Sacks even included a bit in his book The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat which alleged that there are people with a neurological condition which causes them to detect lies, who couldn't watch Mr. Reagan speak because everything he said was a lie; if true this would have been quite an amazing discovery …), and so on & so forth. And of course a lot of this wasn't entirely unfounded. Mr. Obama really was the first anti-American president; Mr. Bush really was incompetent; Mr. Clinton really was a perjurer, philanderer, power-abuser & possible rapist; Mr. Reagan really did lie a lot (e.g. Iran-Contra); Mr. Carter really was incompetent; Mr. Nixon really was a crook; Mr. Johnson really was a crook &c. &c. &c. The fact that we keep on electing compromised, power-hungry people to a position of extreme power is no doubt part of the problem, but even back when the presidency was far weaker you had the partisans of Jefferson & Adams maligning one another with language we would be shocked at today. The only recent American president I can think of who was mostly decent was probably Gerald Ford, who never ran for the position. Maybe that's the secret.

paulsutter 9y ago

No it was never this vitriolic or hateful

jessaustin 9y ago

It goes in cycles, but anyone who imagines that e.g. the Civil War wasn't preceded by strong feelings has no sense of history. Keep in mind that decorum and conduct are different things. Since the 1950s, USA has done some awful things, with inconsistent discussion, heated or otherwise. As someone who regrets that history and takes Orwell seriously, I'm glad there are now some cracks in the consensus.