7 ms·

It is extremely problematic to claim that cooperation declined in America after the 1960s without even mentioning civil rights. Americans are certainly cooperat

It is extremely problematic to claim that cooperation declined in America after the 1960s without even mentioning civil rights. Americans are certainly cooperating more insofar that it’s no longer literally illegal for gay people to have a relationship, or that black families on vacation no longer need a book indicating which gas stations and hotels will actually serve them. The fact that white people are meaner to each other - particularly liberal v. conservative - than they used to be is in fact directly (albeit not solely) related to this, as with the polarization in formal political parties. Seeing the decline after the 1960s is really not a mystery if you think about how American society drastically changed due to Democrat-led legislation passed in 1964 and 1965, right when the graphs started nosediving.

Fellshard 6y ago
Ahhh. So recalcitrant bigotry is your answer?
- kingnight 6y ago
  I think the parent makes a very astute point and this response is handwaving away a huge amount of undeniable social change that is being dismissed.
- bsanr2 6y ago
  People (specifically, the people who ran our public discourse) used to agree that having a persecuted underclass was acceptable. Now, some people do and some people don't, and as is common among groups who disagree about a fundamental aspect of how society should operate, there is some tension.
  - Fellshard 6y ago
    I believe this to be an intentional misread and malattribution of intent of modern discourse.
    - bsanr2 6y ago
      It's easy to tie every pillar of modern conservatism to racism through personal association and the letter and spirit of the evolution of policy. Meanwhile, the most fundamental criticism of leftist intent by the right - that progressives want to destroy the country through a totalitarian Communist revolution - is, frankly, batshit. In short, nah.
      - Fellshard 6y ago
        You are not connected to reality.
jariel 6y ago
If by 'meaner to each other' consider that after said policies were introduced IN THE 1960's, the amount of crime and violence increased massively in all groups, but most poignantly among African Americans wherein the murder rate today is considerably higher than back in the 'nice days' (peaking in 1992). Everyone talks about 'rights' in the 1960's while at the same time there was a massive upheaval in crime. Imagine if you lived in a plain, boring world, and then protests started to happen, and all rates of measured crime went up by 300-800% in your neighbourhood. Having the basis of comparison to know 'what it felt like before' you might be inclined to think the world is in disarray. Imagine if you remembered a time when many inner cities were not 'no go zones' full of extreme crime and poverty - and that those were just 'normal' neighbourhoods, imagine seeing that precipitous decline in real time. It'd be hard not to recognize that 'something' was wrong.
- dbcurtis 6y ago
  Drug use amd drug-related crime also increased during the 60’s. That is a confounding factor in the crime argument.
  - an_opabinia 6y ago
    That and wars happening at the same time and also in the near past that uh, also killed a lot of people. It’s not really the same thing, but US and European governments have lawfully sent more of their own innocent citizens to the grave in this century than any criminals ever. Then again the commenter was trying to equivocate opposition to civil rights as a law and order issue.
  - burner831234 6y ago
    And ^^ the government was aware and enabling this increase in drugs/drug-related crime to disrupt political movements for, specifically equality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO#:~:text=COINTELPRO%20(syllabic%20abbreviation%20derived%20from,and%20disrupting%20American%20political%20organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO#:~:text=COINTELPRO%... https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3jedcYsLL_IJ:https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1997-01-05-1997005031-story.html+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3jedcY... (cached for the ease/convenience)
jwond 6y ago
> Democrat-led legislation passed in 1964 and 1965 Fun fact: a greater percentage of Republican representatives (76.4%) and senators (81.8%) voted in favor of the Civil Rights act of 1964 than Democrat representatives (60.4%) and senators (68.66%). https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/h182 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/h182 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/s409 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/s409 The same is true of the 1965 Voting Rights Act: 80% of Republican representatives and 93.75% of Republican senators voted in favor, vs 75.4% of Democrat representatives and 69.1% of Democrat senators. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/89-1965/h87 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/89-1965/h87 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/89-1965/s78 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/89-1965/s78
- fakedang 6y ago
  Didn't they switch places? A lot of Southern Democrats became hard Republicans after this.
  - bigbubba 6y ago
    The 'switch places' narrative is absurdly simplistic. Taken at face value, it would suggest FDR and his New Deal should be viewed as a modern Republican.
    - fakedang 6y ago
      I was talking about the majority of Southern Democrats.
- ojnabieoot 6y ago
  I am aware of that, thanks, but the fact that the Democratic president was the one who led passage of the Civil Rights Act, while his 1964 Republican opponent’s campaign focused on opposition to the Civil Rights Act, means that civil rights legislation was in fact “Democrat-led.” It is also relevant that most of the Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Act had become Republican by the 80s.
twelvechairs 6y ago
> cooperating more insofar that it’s no longer literally illegal for gay people to have a relationship, or that black families on vacation no longer need a book indicating which gas stations and hotels will actually serve them. This is very much aligned with free market (capitalist) thinking. It's only modern politics which have combined fiscal liberalism (free market) with social conservatism (state or locally enforced prejudice)

Fellshard 6y ago

Ahhh. So recalcitrant bigotry is your answer?

kingnight 6y ago
I think the parent makes a very astute point and this response is handwaving away a huge amount of undeniable social change that is being dismissed.
bsanr2 6y ago
People (specifically, the people who ran our public discourse) used to agree that having a persecuted underclass was acceptable. Now, some people do and some people don't, and as is common among groups who disagree about a fundamental aspect of how society should operate, there is some tension.
- Fellshard 6y ago
  I believe this to be an intentional misread and malattribution of intent of modern discourse.
  - bsanr2 6y ago
    It's easy to tie every pillar of modern conservatism to racism through personal association and the letter and spirit of the evolution of policy. Meanwhile, the most fundamental criticism of leftist intent by the right - that progressives want to destroy the country through a totalitarian Communist revolution - is, frankly, batshit. In short, nah.
    - Fellshard 6y ago
      You are not connected to reality.

jariel 6y ago

If by 'meaner to each other' consider that after said policies were introduced IN THE 1960's, the amount of crime and violence increased massively in all groups, but most poignantly among African Americans wherein the murder rate today is considerably higher than back in the 'nice days' (peaking in 1992). Everyone talks about 'rights' in the 1960's while at the same time there was a massive upheaval in crime. Imagine if you lived in a plain, boring world, and then protests started to happen, and all rates of measured crime went up by 300-800% in your neighbourhood. Having the basis of comparison to know 'what it felt like before' you might be inclined to think the world is in disarray. Imagine if you remembered a time when many inner cities were not 'no go zones' full of extreme crime and poverty - and that those were just 'normal' neighbourhoods, imagine seeing that precipitous decline in real time. It'd be hard not to recognize that 'something' was wrong.

dbcurtis 6y ago
Drug use amd drug-related crime also increased during the 60’s. That is a confounding factor in the crime argument.
- an_opabinia 6y ago
  That and wars happening at the same time and also in the near past that uh, also killed a lot of people. It’s not really the same thing, but US and European governments have lawfully sent more of their own innocent citizens to the grave in this century than any criminals ever. Then again the commenter was trying to equivocate opposition to civil rights as a law and order issue.
- burner831234 6y ago
  And ^^ the government was aware and enabling this increase in drugs/drug-related crime to disrupt political movements for, specifically equality: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO#:~:text=COINTELPRO%20(syllabic%20abbreviation%20derived%20from,and%20disrupting%20American%20political%20organization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO#:~:text=COINTELPRO%... https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3jedcYsLL_IJ:https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1997-01-05-1997005031-story.html+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3jedcY... (cached for the ease/convenience)

jwond 6y ago

> Democrat-led legislation passed in 1964 and 1965 Fun fact: a greater percentage of Republican representatives (76.4%) and senators (81.8%) voted in favor of the Civil Rights act of 1964 than Democrat representatives (60.4%) and senators (68.66%). https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/h182 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/h182 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/s409 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/88-1964/s409 The same is true of the 1965 Voting Rights Act: 80% of Republican representatives and 93.75% of Republican senators voted in favor, vs 75.4% of Democrat representatives and 69.1% of Democrat senators. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/89-1965/h87 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/89-1965/h87 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/89-1965/s78 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/89-1965/s78

fakedang 6y ago
Didn't they switch places? A lot of Southern Democrats became hard Republicans after this.
- bigbubba 6y ago
  The 'switch places' narrative is absurdly simplistic. Taken at face value, it would suggest FDR and his New Deal should be viewed as a modern Republican.
  - fakedang 6y ago
    I was talking about the majority of Southern Democrats.
ojnabieoot 6y ago
I am aware of that, thanks, but the fact that the Democratic president was the one who led passage of the Civil Rights Act, while his 1964 Republican opponent’s campaign focused on opposition to the Civil Rights Act, means that civil rights legislation was in fact “Democrat-led.” It is also relevant that most of the Democrats who voted against the Civil Rights Act had become Republican by the 80s.

twelvechairs 6y ago

> cooperating more insofar that it’s no longer literally illegal for gay people to have a relationship, or that black families on vacation no longer need a book indicating which gas stations and hotels will actually serve them. This is very much aligned with free market (capitalist) thinking. It's only modern politics which have combined fiscal liberalism (free market) with social conservatism (state or locally enforced prejudice)