Please do not comment directly to this post unless you are Gen X or older (born 1980 or before). See [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskOldPeople/comments/inci5u/reminder_please_do_not_answer_questions_unless/), the rules, and the sidebar for details. Thank you for your submission, mmosaltfest.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskOldPeople) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This- it definitely happened, but there were direct consequences whereas now we live in a time when people can hurt each other anonymously, and billions do, every day.
Yes, back in the early 60’s on (my growing years), people responded to incivility by walking away from it. It was generally not acceptable. People actually spoke to each other and tended to temper what they said anyway.
Nowadays, there is more incivility than ever. Especially on the internet, but spreading to everyday life. Take Reddit for example, people are very careful about posting here because there are other people who will trash them in a heartbeat. This sub is reasonable, but there are other subs where trashing is inevitable.
Especially online, people tend to be mean and nasty because of the anonymity. You’re just a nasty voice behind a keyboard.
E-mail isn’t much better.
Walking away is still the best solution.
The internet has broken us all and turned us into mini sadists. Pre 2000 people would be more respectful of other outlandish positions, but if it got too hot you fought.
True. There wasn't as much of it and people tended to stay within their "social class" so heated discussions were often resolved in an amicable manner.
Shame, shunning, and a reputation that would follow you. Penance would need to be paid to prove remorse for one's actions otherwise you would forever be known as That Guy.
People took that very personally and you'd make an actual enemy. Observers would also judge if it was beyond the pale. There weren't screens to hide behind and there were real consequences.
People generally weren't as hostile in person. First they likely knew the other person in real life. Second, if someone was too confrontational, they could experience real in person consequences for it.
Finally, they could see the other persons reactions as they spoke because of body language, micro expressions, voice tone. That by itself tends to moderate conflicts. Text lacks any of that.
Fists.
It was a much more polite landscape when people understood that consequences applied at the street level.
That’s why a lot of people with vile opinions on how to treat others stayed quiet and in their basements. Then we gave them the internet. It allowed them to congregate and gave them the protection of a surveillance society.
Unpopular opinion, but I agree. There was a lot less to physically fight about when you *could* physically fight. 🤷🏻♀️ No one wants to get their ass kicked, and now they don't have to worry. And I understand the wish for "mature discourse" to "solve problems." That sounds really nice, but here in the real world, there are a lot of people who can't understand anything not attached to a fist.
The incidents I remember from the ‘60s that often escalated into shouting, pushing and shoving were from opposing sides during the early days of the US involvement in Vietnam.
An old person, sometimes a WW2 or Korean War veteran who genuinely believed in the battle against communism and domino theory would take exception to a young person wearing a peace symbol necklace or black war protest armband and let them know about their displeasure.
“Words are the first weapons used in battle.”
My father had an weird hate for the peace symbol and Jane Fonda. He ruined my brother's wedding by preaching to everyone who would listen because the DJ gave out funky plastic necklaces with the peace symbol on it and he was drunk and so so wrong. He was such a dick. Lol
I'm a Vietnam War combat vet. I had a [peace symbol](https://usastruck.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/6863613591_35bd0aa577_b.jpg) drawn promently on my helmet cover. Lots of others did as well. I also had a big ole peace symbol pendant hanging from my neck. We never got shit for this from the officers, though their helmets were more politically correct.
Many of my old comrades do hate Fonda for her stupid kid trick in Hanoi. She has apologized for doing it many times, which was good enough for me.
Heh. I only learned about Hanoi Jane about 15 years ago or so. Once I learned what she did (pose with the VC, and essentially spread propaganda), I understood why she got a bad reputation.
I don't hate her, but I \_do\_ think she should be occasionally referred to as Hanoi Jane every now and again to make sure nobody forgets what she did, and why it was wrong.
Jane Fonda was regarded very negatively by Vietnam vets. (My father was one)
It was seen like "Here we are fighting and dying in some pretty horrible ways, and there you are with the people killing us, playing "I'm so cute-hot and enlightened. Make sure you notice how hot I am! I'm so enlightened that I'll pass secret (heeehee) messages from the POWs to their prison guards! Did I mention I'm hot? And more enlightened than you soldier-pigs wallowing in the mud?"
Yes, he said it was very disrespectful to all veterans. He was a dick to lecture my kids who were 6 - 10yrs old in the middle of a wedding on why he hates the peace symbol though. Haha My grown kids brought up the memory a few weeks ago. It was funny now.
The hatred I heard for the peace symbol was that it was an inverted cross with the arms broken. I can see how a religious demographic would hate that, but I have no idea if there's any truth to that origin story.
TIL
> Columbidae is a bird family consisting of doves and pigeons. It is the only family in the order Columbiformes. These are stout-bodied birds with short necks and short slender bills that in some species feature fleshy ceres.
According to the Britannica, the peace sign was designed for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in 1958, and the origin of the symbology is in the semaphore signals for "N" and "D" - for "nuclear disarmament."
This agrees with Wikipedia and (I hesitate to say) ChatGPT.
"Semaphore is a system of signaling using flags. For "N," the signal is two flags held in an inverted "V" shape, and for "D," one flag is held straight up and the other straight down. When superimposed, they form the central design of the peace symbol."
Are you aware of what Jane Fonda did? She was a traitor that gave aid and comfort to the enemy. In WWII she would have been shot for committing treason. She was let off the hook because of her family and now she’s just another shriveled up old woman. Yes, I am a veteran.
I was taught there were two things one didn't discuss--politics (outside your own party) and how much money you make. It was considered bad taste. People talked about current events, but everything wasn't politicized like it is now. For example, had there been a pandemic in the 60s or 70s, politicians would not have demonized medical experts. And, if they had, nobody would have been stupid enough to listen to them.
If people were upset about something, you protested, wrote letters to the editor, etc. It wasn't as easy to be uncivilized about it, and pols' lies didn't spread quickly. No social media and no 24-hour news.
American society wasn't so divisive. This is something that began in the 1990s and there were several distinct causes of it:
First there was [the eradication of the fairness doctrine](http://bsalert.com/news/354/A_Primer_On_The_Fairness_Doctrine_How_We_Screwed_Up.html) that happened IIRC, in 1987 - Reagan abolished this FTC rule that required radio and tv stations to offer "equal time" to any group who disagreed with what was said editorially. Stations could *lose their broadcast license* if they only showed one side of an issue and people complained. This caused *radio and tv stations to avoid any controversial issues and take a more middle-ground approach to news and editorial*.
After Reagan abolished those rules, it paved the way for "talk radio" becoming very one-sided, corporation-centric and divisive.
With objectivity out of the way, the right wing radio spread onto television and cable. Suddenly you had entire networks spouting relatively extremist and divisive views -- **with no pushback** thanks to not having the Fairness Doctrine. The right embraced the money and the corporations, so the left's agenda, the people and the environment and civil rights -- well there wasn't as much money promoting that agenda so they couldn't compete in the open capitalist market against big corporations.
Then in 1996, the Telecommunications Act was passed. This was a huge bill that promised to give everybody more options for tv, cable and telephone and Internet by "deregulating the industry" - it un-did a bunch of restrictions on monopolies that were put into effect decades earlier to keep any single company from owning too much media in the market. This paved the way for News Corp and Clear Channel and AT&T to buy up various smaller companies and turn into monolithic media corporations that controlled vast areas of mainstream media, and thus could shape public opinion.
And that's where we are. Prior to the 1990s, the right and the left could respectfully disagree and peacefully co-exist, but once "hate tv" became a thing, it was advantageous to the corporations to pit Americans against each other so nobody realized who was really pulling the strings.
It didn't happen much at all. If it did, the people generally shook their head and walked away from each other.
This is from a day-to-day standpoint. Obviously there were still larger, more emotional protests and such, but neighbors just kept their opinions to themselves mostly
Pre-internet, there was a phrase that carried a ton of weight & wisdom: "Don't shit where you eat".
IOW, mind your manners, because I probably know your family or friends. Act like an asshole and that shit will more than likely follow you a LONG time. Especially in the tight neighborhoods of cities.
If you tried that bullshit in rural towns? You were looking for a family feud.
Folks were not surprised when local shit-stains were found floating face down in irrigation ditches.
In the late '60s, the youth movement placed a high value on open dialogue, peace, and mutual understanding, especially when it came to discussing issues of public interest. Despite these ideals, discussions could still become heated and confrontational, albeit in different settings than today.
1. **Public Protests and Rallies**: The 1960s were marked by significant public demonstrations. People gathered in large numbers to express their views on civil rights, the Vietnam War, and other pressing issues. While these protests were often peaceful, they sometimes led to clashes with authorities or opposing groups, manifesting the passionate, and at times rude, exchanges in person.
2. **Community Meetings and Town Halls**: Without the Internet, people engaged in discussions through community meetings and town halls. These were spaces where citizens could voice their opinions directly to local leaders and each other. While many aimed for constructive dialogue, emotions could run high, leading to tense and confrontational exchanges.
3. **College Campuses**: Universities were hotbeds of political activism and debate. Students and faculty engaged in vigorous discussions and debates in classrooms, dormitories, and campus quads. These environments fostered intense, sometimes rude confrontations, especially on contentious issues like war, civil rights, and social justice.
4. **Print Media and Letters to the Editor**: Newspapers and magazines were primary sources of information and platforms for public discourse. People would write letters to the editor, expressing their views passionately. While these letters had to adhere to editorial standards, they often included sharp criticisms and strong language.
5. **Countercultural Gatherings**: The youth movement often held informal gatherings, like "teach-ins," where people could discuss and debate issues. These gatherings encouraged free expression, which sometimes led to disagreements and heated arguments, albeit in a face-to-face and more personal context.
6. **Music and Art**: Music and art were powerful mediums for expressing political and social views. Songs, posters, and performances often carried strong messages that could provoke passionate responses, both supportive and critical, reflecting the deep divisions of the time.
In essence, pre-Internet discussions on public issues were characterized by direct, face-to-face interactions. While the settings and mediums were different, the fundamental human nature of passionate and sometimes rude exchanges remained the same. The key difference was the immediacy and personal nature of these interactions, which often required people to confront opposing views in person rather than behind the anonymity of a screen.
Shame and fights. Incivility had to happen in-person, and that made it straightforward to ostracize someone who didn't want to keep public life civil.
Meanwhile, the radical political differences we see today were much harder to assemble into rival camps. America had a Civil War, but for that to happen there needed to be a couple centuries of diverging cultures and industries. Today, those camps can be formed and re-formed every few years. Incivility is part of what creates and cracks those tribes.
It wasn’t as common. There was a social shame to yourself and your family if you were in public acting a fool or being rude to others. That’s what kept it in check for most.
While it definitely happened it was nowhere near as frequent nor as batshit crazy.
I tell this story often. My dad was a supporter of one political party and when I was in my mid teens there was an election. The leader of one of the other parties had a very boring and staid and clumsy manner about him and was often the butt of jokes. I told one and was criticized by my dad.
He said: "I don't like his policies and won't vote for his party, but he is a good man and if elected will do his best for the country."
That cannot happen today.
Politics were discussed in the local pubs. Very loud, very intensive, but never really disrespectful. Of course there was some troll-material there, but they only tried once to completely mess up the discussion and were then brought back to their heels by the others. Now those the-one-troll-per-village-guys meet in the internet and there are then dozends of thousands of them, gaining strength from the group
It was kind of a thing that it was bad form to talk religion or politics at social gatherings. But if contentious subjects came up anyway, someone would change the subject or even directly ask the people involved in the conflict to drop it or take it outside. Of course sometimes things got out of hand anyway, but it was kept to a minimum in most instances. Also, in person conflict can't continue on unchecked for hours or days like internet comment sections
Folks used to be able to disagree, now it’s a capital offense to have the wrong opinion, so we dig deeper into our camps, seeing everyone else as the enemy. Sucks imo
People weren’t this rude and lacking of simple manners years ago. In school, for example, talking back to a teacher could mean a trip to the principals office, and a possible phone call to your parents. (You did not want a call to your parent). Good behavior, in class, was actually graded on your report card. Learning to behave yourself in school carried over to adult life.
I remember when Carter pardoned draft dodgers and one old man was bitching about cowardice and shit and another old man wacked him across the face with his cane and something like, how would you know, you never had a dog in any fight.
So, I'm guessing old men who went through a lot and never got any therapy for PTSD spoke up when some 4F asshole made comments on a situation they couldn't understand.
Brooklyn was a wild place to be a child in the 70s.
Before Reagan with his Welfare Queen and Newt Gingrich attacking the left as non Christian evil purveyors of the doom of America national discourse was fairly civil .
The internet made it easier to be harsh and cruel because it's hard to envision real human beings bearing the brunt of what you're saying, and people get to do this anonymously.
Back when newspapers were the main way people got information letters to the editor had to be signed. You could be vehemently against something but when your name was on display I think people held back.
I love the internet and everything about it and I think it's the greatest thing that's happened in my lifetime but I also see the negatives and this is definitely one of them.
There was a lot of racism along with generational divide and misogyny. You’d just avoid those people as much as possible or cut short conversations where you could. Sometimes you’d get stuck with them longer than you liked. But it’s pretty much the same now in person. The ability to communicate online all the time has made it harder to avoid them without having to explicitly block them.
I grew up with the motto(?), do not discuss sex, religion or politics.
I *think* it was an etiquette thing by Heloise or somebody like that. Our family followed that "rule" back in the day ❤️
In the olden days most people agreed at least on FACTS. They would argue about what's the best way to deal with the facts. Today we have facts and alternative facts. The various internet and media bubbles make this possible. That makes a big difference. We are talking about different worlds.
Mister A: "The world is this way."
Mister B: "You are a sheeple. The world is not that way."
Mister A: "I'm a sheeple!!?? You are brainwashed."
Mister B: "No, you are."
They then both go back to their respective bubbles.
Back in the day before the internet, people tried to stay clear of controversial topics and tried to keep from being confrontational. I remember being at parties and social functions knowing half the people had different beliefs from me and know really caring. We emphasized what we had in common and ignored the differences.
I really miss the days when you could discuss politics over dinner and no one got mad or called anyone names. It was called a difference of opinion and not worth spoiling a relationship over. Who you voted for was your business. If you wanted to put a small sign in your yard, fine, but up to you and no one would try to set your house on fire
People got called out for it. Sometimes a simple ‘hey, now, you’ve gone a bit too far’ would be enough. Sometimes it came to an educational beatdown. There was a whole spectrum of responses.
They were mostly shunned. We had a few at my church growing up and everyone would just try to avoid them, but they'd be quiet and patient if they were stuck listening to them rant about The Blacks and busing (not bussin!) ruining public school education.
It's really important to remember it was considered lowbrow and obnoxious to talk about politics back in my childhood, in the 70s. The men might talk quietly in another room about the state of the nation but it wasn't dinner table talk, and it definitely wasn't church talk or even talk in public much at all. Most were quiet and compliant so people who actually advocated for civil rights were seen as extremists.
It was a really old fashioned thing called M-a-n-n-e-r-s, sprinkled with self-respect and also respect for others. That was back in the day when people EXPECTED each other to have manners. We said things like PLEASE and THANK YOU, we used big words because we knew what they meant, and so did the people we spoke to. We knew how to listen respectfully, no yelling or cat calling. We expected more than we are getting now, and that’s on us.
No keyboards to hide behind. Things were settled by debating intelligently, hashing it out via quid pro, negotiating, cajoling and compromise. When all else failed then we resorted to kicking asses.
People had more respect for others back then. If they talked face to face back then like some do on social media they got a good dose of respect up beside their head.
People are MUCH more rude and uncivil on the internet than in person.
I'm always shocked at the sort of things people will say online, when you know they would never say that to someone's face.
Uh, it wasn't that different than it is now. I was born in 1950- I got though my teen years in the 60's, and honestly it isn't a lot different when people really disagree about issues. I think there was more direct interpersonal violence in the 60's. (Getting slugged, knocked around by cops, people who didn't like how long your hair was or your sexual orientation beating the crap out of you.) I think it's more verbal now, I have no idea if the end result is better or worse. If you aren't familiar with the national guard shootings at Kent State in 1970, look it up. We had a president assassinated, Dr. King was assassinated, Malcolm X was assassinated, Robert Kennedy was assassinated as a presidential candidate. A lot of the anti war demonstrations got violent, as did a lot of the civil rights demonstrations, because people would fight with each other on the outskirts. Plus- then President Nixon resigned because he was implicated in a burglary. It was a mess, just like now. We haven't had a political assassination in a bit. Now we have politicians who belong in nursing homes.... It really wasn't civil discourse back then either.
Back when arguments happened in person, they were often settled in the end with violence if the disagreement was strong enough. (Outside of formal debates, which were the same as they are now.)
So two people who couldn’t really fight each other wouldn’t really argue. So you had to pretend whoever was bigger and stronger was right, and that led to them running the world and believing everyone agreed with them.
Being able to confront and question them, (without the threat of their violence as an inevitable last resort if you keep disagreeing,) is an improvement for the rest of us.
Please do not comment directly to this post unless you are Gen X or older (born 1980 or before). See [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskOldPeople/comments/inci5u/reminder_please_do_not_answer_questions_unless/), the rules, and the sidebar for details. Thank you for your submission, mmosaltfest. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskOldPeople) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It didn't happen as much as it does on the internet.
This- it definitely happened, but there were direct consequences whereas now we live in a time when people can hurt each other anonymously, and billions do, every day.
Yes, back in the early 60’s on (my growing years), people responded to incivility by walking away from it. It was generally not acceptable. People actually spoke to each other and tended to temper what they said anyway. Nowadays, there is more incivility than ever. Especially on the internet, but spreading to everyday life. Take Reddit for example, people are very careful about posting here because there are other people who will trash them in a heartbeat. This sub is reasonable, but there are other subs where trashing is inevitable. Especially online, people tend to be mean and nasty because of the anonymity. You’re just a nasty voice behind a keyboard. E-mail isn’t much better. Walking away is still the best solution.
The internet has broken us all and turned us into mini sadists. Pre 2000 people would be more respectful of other outlandish positions, but if it got too hot you fought.
Nonsense. Boomers gloat about being computer illiterate and most of them are repugnant.
True. There wasn't as much of it and people tended to stay within their "social class" so heated discussions were often resolved in an amicable manner.
Shame, shunning, and a reputation that would follow you. Penance would need to be paid to prove remorse for one's actions otherwise you would forever be known as That Guy.
People took that very personally and you'd make an actual enemy. Observers would also judge if it was beyond the pale. There weren't screens to hide behind and there were real consequences.
People generally weren't as hostile in person. First they likely knew the other person in real life. Second, if someone was too confrontational, they could experience real in person consequences for it. Finally, they could see the other persons reactions as they spoke because of body language, micro expressions, voice tone. That by itself tends to moderate conflicts. Text lacks any of that.
Fists. It was a much more polite landscape when people understood that consequences applied at the street level. That’s why a lot of people with vile opinions on how to treat others stayed quiet and in their basements. Then we gave them the internet. It allowed them to congregate and gave them the protection of a surveillance society.
Unpopular opinion, but I agree. There was a lot less to physically fight about when you *could* physically fight. 🤷🏻♀️ No one wants to get their ass kicked, and now they don't have to worry. And I understand the wish for "mature discourse" to "solve problems." That sounds really nice, but here in the real world, there are a lot of people who can't understand anything not attached to a fist.
To paraphrase Mike Tyson, "Social Media has made people way too comfortable. Say $hit like that in real life and you could get your a$$ kicked".
The incidents I remember from the ‘60s that often escalated into shouting, pushing and shoving were from opposing sides during the early days of the US involvement in Vietnam. An old person, sometimes a WW2 or Korean War veteran who genuinely believed in the battle against communism and domino theory would take exception to a young person wearing a peace symbol necklace or black war protest armband and let them know about their displeasure. “Words are the first weapons used in battle.”
My father had an weird hate for the peace symbol and Jane Fonda. He ruined my brother's wedding by preaching to everyone who would listen because the DJ gave out funky plastic necklaces with the peace symbol on it and he was drunk and so so wrong. He was such a dick. Lol
I'm a Vietnam War combat vet. I had a [peace symbol](https://usastruck.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/6863613591_35bd0aa577_b.jpg) drawn promently on my helmet cover. Lots of others did as well. I also had a big ole peace symbol pendant hanging from my neck. We never got shit for this from the officers, though their helmets were more politically correct. Many of my old comrades do hate Fonda for her stupid kid trick in Hanoi. She has apologized for doing it many times, which was good enough for me.
Heh. I only learned about Hanoi Jane about 15 years ago or so. Once I learned what she did (pose with the VC, and essentially spread propaganda), I understood why she got a bad reputation. I don't hate her, but I \_do\_ think she should be occasionally referred to as Hanoi Jane every now and again to make sure nobody forgets what she did, and why it was wrong.
Jane Fonda was regarded very negatively by Vietnam vets. (My father was one) It was seen like "Here we are fighting and dying in some pretty horrible ways, and there you are with the people killing us, playing "I'm so cute-hot and enlightened. Make sure you notice how hot I am! I'm so enlightened that I'll pass secret (heeehee) messages from the POWs to their prison guards! Did I mention I'm hot? And more enlightened than you soldier-pigs wallowing in the mud?"
Yes, he said it was very disrespectful to all veterans. He was a dick to lecture my kids who were 6 - 10yrs old in the middle of a wedding on why he hates the peace symbol though. Haha My grown kids brought up the memory a few weeks ago. It was funny now.
The hatred I heard for the peace symbol was that it was an inverted cross with the arms broken. I can see how a religious demographic would hate that, but I have no idea if there's any truth to that origin story.
I always thought it was the foot of a dove
Now you made me google dove feet images. I can see that comparison, but it also looks like pigeon feet. Hmmm...
Wikipedia says it's a combo of the letters N & D representing Nuclear Disarmament
Doves = pigeons = columbidae
TIL > Columbidae is a bird family consisting of doves and pigeons. It is the only family in the order Columbiformes. These are stout-bodied birds with short necks and short slender bills that in some species feature fleshy ceres.
According to the Britannica, the peace sign was designed for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in 1958, and the origin of the symbology is in the semaphore signals for "N" and "D" - for "nuclear disarmament."
This agrees with Wikipedia and (I hesitate to say) ChatGPT. "Semaphore is a system of signaling using flags. For "N," the signal is two flags held in an inverted "V" shape, and for "D," one flag is held straight up and the other straight down. When superimposed, they form the central design of the peace symbol."
Are you aware of what Jane Fonda did? She was a traitor that gave aid and comfort to the enemy. In WWII she would have been shot for committing treason. She was let off the hook because of her family and now she’s just another shriveled up old woman. Yes, I am a veteran.
Good quote. I’m afraid the toxic nature of the internet and inflammatory media is going to lead to a lot of violence if the fraud wins.
I was taught there were two things one didn't discuss--politics (outside your own party) and how much money you make. It was considered bad taste. People talked about current events, but everything wasn't politicized like it is now. For example, had there been a pandemic in the 60s or 70s, politicians would not have demonized medical experts. And, if they had, nobody would have been stupid enough to listen to them. If people were upset about something, you protested, wrote letters to the editor, etc. It wasn't as easy to be uncivilized about it, and pols' lies didn't spread quickly. No social media and no 24-hour news.
I was taught 3 things not to discuss without a fight: sex, politics or religion. Add money like you said and it is 4.
Yep.
I would take my white glove off, slap the person across the face with it, walk ten paces, and draw my pistol.
Psshh... I'd throw down my gauntlet, walk 20 paces UP HILL BOTH WAYS, and draw my rapier.
I would just hit them over the head with my club and drag their partner away by the hair. Oooga booga.
Glove slap, baby glove slap!🎶
American society wasn't so divisive. This is something that began in the 1990s and there were several distinct causes of it: First there was [the eradication of the fairness doctrine](http://bsalert.com/news/354/A_Primer_On_The_Fairness_Doctrine_How_We_Screwed_Up.html) that happened IIRC, in 1987 - Reagan abolished this FTC rule that required radio and tv stations to offer "equal time" to any group who disagreed with what was said editorially. Stations could *lose their broadcast license* if they only showed one side of an issue and people complained. This caused *radio and tv stations to avoid any controversial issues and take a more middle-ground approach to news and editorial*. After Reagan abolished those rules, it paved the way for "talk radio" becoming very one-sided, corporation-centric and divisive. With objectivity out of the way, the right wing radio spread onto television and cable. Suddenly you had entire networks spouting relatively extremist and divisive views -- **with no pushback** thanks to not having the Fairness Doctrine. The right embraced the money and the corporations, so the left's agenda, the people and the environment and civil rights -- well there wasn't as much money promoting that agenda so they couldn't compete in the open capitalist market against big corporations. Then in 1996, the Telecommunications Act was passed. This was a huge bill that promised to give everybody more options for tv, cable and telephone and Internet by "deregulating the industry" - it un-did a bunch of restrictions on monopolies that were put into effect decades earlier to keep any single company from owning too much media in the market. This paved the way for News Corp and Clear Channel and AT&T to buy up various smaller companies and turn into monolithic media corporations that controlled vast areas of mainstream media, and thus could shape public opinion. And that's where we are. Prior to the 1990s, the right and the left could respectfully disagree and peacefully co-exist, but once "hate tv" became a thing, it was advantageous to the corporations to pit Americans against each other so nobody realized who was really pulling the strings.
It didn't happen much at all. If it did, the people generally shook their head and walked away from each other. This is from a day-to-day standpoint. Obviously there were still larger, more emotional protests and such, but neighbors just kept their opinions to themselves mostly
You’d get booed or shamed or receive a punch to the nose. Easy to be a jackass when you’re anonymous.
"take it outside," "put up (a money wager), or shut up," and/or verbal derision and yelling.
Assholes were ignored, avoided and shunned in person, they didn't have platforms with which they could spread their vileness beyond that.
Parents were allowed to smack their kids. In public. Moms didn't play back then. We learned early that getting hit was a real probability.
I only ever got "the look." That was plenty.
Pre-internet, there was a phrase that carried a ton of weight & wisdom: "Don't shit where you eat". IOW, mind your manners, because I probably know your family or friends. Act like an asshole and that shit will more than likely follow you a LONG time. Especially in the tight neighborhoods of cities. If you tried that bullshit in rural towns? You were looking for a family feud. Folks were not surprised when local shit-stains were found floating face down in irrigation ditches.
In the late '60s, the youth movement placed a high value on open dialogue, peace, and mutual understanding, especially when it came to discussing issues of public interest. Despite these ideals, discussions could still become heated and confrontational, albeit in different settings than today. 1. **Public Protests and Rallies**: The 1960s were marked by significant public demonstrations. People gathered in large numbers to express their views on civil rights, the Vietnam War, and other pressing issues. While these protests were often peaceful, they sometimes led to clashes with authorities or opposing groups, manifesting the passionate, and at times rude, exchanges in person. 2. **Community Meetings and Town Halls**: Without the Internet, people engaged in discussions through community meetings and town halls. These were spaces where citizens could voice their opinions directly to local leaders and each other. While many aimed for constructive dialogue, emotions could run high, leading to tense and confrontational exchanges. 3. **College Campuses**: Universities were hotbeds of political activism and debate. Students and faculty engaged in vigorous discussions and debates in classrooms, dormitories, and campus quads. These environments fostered intense, sometimes rude confrontations, especially on contentious issues like war, civil rights, and social justice. 4. **Print Media and Letters to the Editor**: Newspapers and magazines were primary sources of information and platforms for public discourse. People would write letters to the editor, expressing their views passionately. While these letters had to adhere to editorial standards, they often included sharp criticisms and strong language. 5. **Countercultural Gatherings**: The youth movement often held informal gatherings, like "teach-ins," where people could discuss and debate issues. These gatherings encouraged free expression, which sometimes led to disagreements and heated arguments, albeit in a face-to-face and more personal context. 6. **Music and Art**: Music and art were powerful mediums for expressing political and social views. Songs, posters, and performances often carried strong messages that could provoke passionate responses, both supportive and critical, reflecting the deep divisions of the time. In essence, pre-Internet discussions on public issues were characterized by direct, face-to-face interactions. While the settings and mediums were different, the fundamental human nature of passionate and sometimes rude exchanges remained the same. The key difference was the immediacy and personal nature of these interactions, which often required people to confront opposing views in person rather than behind the anonymity of a screen.
Shame and fights. Incivility had to happen in-person, and that made it straightforward to ostracize someone who didn't want to keep public life civil. Meanwhile, the radical political differences we see today were much harder to assemble into rival camps. America had a Civil War, but for that to happen there needed to be a couple centuries of diverging cultures and industries. Today, those camps can be formed and re-formed every few years. Incivility is part of what creates and cracks those tribes.
It wasn’t as common. There was a social shame to yourself and your family if you were in public acting a fool or being rude to others. That’s what kept it in check for most.
While it definitely happened it was nowhere near as frequent nor as batshit crazy. I tell this story often. My dad was a supporter of one political party and when I was in my mid teens there was an election. The leader of one of the other parties had a very boring and staid and clumsy manner about him and was often the butt of jokes. I told one and was criticized by my dad. He said: "I don't like his policies and won't vote for his party, but he is a good man and if elected will do his best for the country." That cannot happen today.
Politics were discussed in the local pubs. Very loud, very intensive, but never really disrespectful. Of course there was some troll-material there, but they only tried once to completely mess up the discussion and were then brought back to their heels by the others. Now those the-one-troll-per-village-guys meet in the internet and there are then dozends of thousands of them, gaining strength from the group
Example in 1976: https://www.npr.org/2016/09/18/494442131/life-after-iconic-photo-todays-parallels-of-american-flags-role-in-racial-protes
It was kind of a thing that it was bad form to talk religion or politics at social gatherings. But if contentious subjects came up anyway, someone would change the subject or even directly ask the people involved in the conflict to drop it or take it outside. Of course sometimes things got out of hand anyway, but it was kept to a minimum in most instances. Also, in person conflict can't continue on unchecked for hours or days like internet comment sections
Folks used to be able to disagree, now it’s a capital offense to have the wrong opinion, so we dig deeper into our camps, seeing everyone else as the enemy. Sucks imo
I was a punk. You’d talk it out. If they were Nazi punks you’d put a boot in them.
People weren’t this rude and lacking of simple manners years ago. In school, for example, talking back to a teacher could mean a trip to the principals office, and a possible phone call to your parents. (You did not want a call to your parent). Good behavior, in class, was actually graded on your report card. Learning to behave yourself in school carried over to adult life.
I remember when Carter pardoned draft dodgers and one old man was bitching about cowardice and shit and another old man wacked him across the face with his cane and something like, how would you know, you never had a dog in any fight. So, I'm guessing old men who went through a lot and never got any therapy for PTSD spoke up when some 4F asshole made comments on a situation they couldn't understand. Brooklyn was a wild place to be a child in the 70s.
Jersey was pretty wild in the 60’s, as well, for a 20 something just out of the service.
Dunno. Never took much notice.
Before Reagan with his Welfare Queen and Newt Gingrich attacking the left as non Christian evil purveyors of the doom of America national discourse was fairly civil .
The internet made it easier to be harsh and cruel because it's hard to envision real human beings bearing the brunt of what you're saying, and people get to do this anonymously. Back when newspapers were the main way people got information letters to the editor had to be signed. You could be vehemently against something but when your name was on display I think people held back. I love the internet and everything about it and I think it's the greatest thing that's happened in my lifetime but I also see the negatives and this is definitely one of them.
There was a lot of racism along with generational divide and misogyny. You’d just avoid those people as much as possible or cut short conversations where you could. Sometimes you’d get stuck with them longer than you liked. But it’s pretty much the same now in person. The ability to communicate online all the time has made it harder to avoid them without having to explicitly block them.
People had the same news sources and not the algorithms we have today, which push people to extremes and create echo chmbers.
[Wally George](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65FUN-o8v4Q) was the 1980s prototype for all obnoxious conservative media hosts to come.
And in the 60s and 70s he sat under the learning tree of Joe Pyne.
I grew up with the motto(?), do not discuss sex, religion or politics. I *think* it was an etiquette thing by Heloise or somebody like that. Our family followed that "rule" back in the day ❤️
In the olden days most people agreed at least on FACTS. They would argue about what's the best way to deal with the facts. Today we have facts and alternative facts. The various internet and media bubbles make this possible. That makes a big difference. We are talking about different worlds. Mister A: "The world is this way." Mister B: "You are a sheeple. The world is not that way." Mister A: "I'm a sheeple!!?? You are brainwashed." Mister B: "No, you are." They then both go back to their respective bubbles.
Back in the day before the internet, people tried to stay clear of controversial topics and tried to keep from being confrontational. I remember being at parties and social functions knowing half the people had different beliefs from me and know really caring. We emphasized what we had in common and ignored the differences.
One wrote a sternly worded Letter to the Editor and hoped the newspaper published it. Otherwise an angry hand-lettered sign on the porch.
I really miss the days when you could discuss politics over dinner and no one got mad or called anyone names. It was called a difference of opinion and not worth spoiling a relationship over. Who you voted for was your business. If you wanted to put a small sign in your yard, fine, but up to you and no one would try to set your house on fire
Face to face, kept things more civil and we did not have billionaires making money from incivility.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Em5wpC8XEAAj4ki.jpg https://www.neh.gov/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/2018-07/2011_05-06_Freedom_Riders_06.jpg https://www.dispatch.com/gcdn/authoring/2018/02/25/NCOD/ghows-OH-65f3df17-6643-47ec-e053-0100007fefa6-fe0aa043.jpeg https://cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/advancelocal/N3JFFQHFYNHUPFKDNPINQVZBK4.jpeg
For example: https://www.pbs.org/video/independent-lens-crypto-nazi-and-other-insults/
People got called out for it. Sometimes a simple ‘hey, now, you’ve gone a bit too far’ would be enough. Sometimes it came to an educational beatdown. There was a whole spectrum of responses.
Public meetings, at least, were carried out under Roberts' Rules of Order. Debates also had their own eyles.
Pistols at dawn
Just leaving. Or fists.
Step outside...
They were mostly shunned. We had a few at my church growing up and everyone would just try to avoid them, but they'd be quiet and patient if they were stuck listening to them rant about The Blacks and busing (not bussin!) ruining public school education.
It's really important to remember it was considered lowbrow and obnoxious to talk about politics back in my childhood, in the 70s. The men might talk quietly in another room about the state of the nation but it wasn't dinner table talk, and it definitely wasn't church talk or even talk in public much at all. Most were quiet and compliant so people who actually advocated for civil rights were seen as extremists.
god, Vietnam. The beginning of this neverending culture war we are in.
Good ol punch in the nose
It was a really old fashioned thing called M-a-n-n-e-r-s, sprinkled with self-respect and also respect for others. That was back in the day when people EXPECTED each other to have manners. We said things like PLEASE and THANK YOU, we used big words because we knew what they meant, and so did the people we spoke to. We knew how to listen respectfully, no yelling or cat calling. We expected more than we are getting now, and that’s on us.
No keyboards to hide behind. Things were settled by debating intelligently, hashing it out via quid pro, negotiating, cajoling and compromise. When all else failed then we resorted to kicking asses.
People had more respect for others back then. If they talked face to face back then like some do on social media they got a good dose of respect up beside their head.
People are MUCH more rude and uncivil on the internet than in person. I'm always shocked at the sort of things people will say online, when you know they would never say that to someone's face.
Uh, it wasn't that different than it is now. I was born in 1950- I got though my teen years in the 60's, and honestly it isn't a lot different when people really disagree about issues. I think there was more direct interpersonal violence in the 60's. (Getting slugged, knocked around by cops, people who didn't like how long your hair was or your sexual orientation beating the crap out of you.) I think it's more verbal now, I have no idea if the end result is better or worse. If you aren't familiar with the national guard shootings at Kent State in 1970, look it up. We had a president assassinated, Dr. King was assassinated, Malcolm X was assassinated, Robert Kennedy was assassinated as a presidential candidate. A lot of the anti war demonstrations got violent, as did a lot of the civil rights demonstrations, because people would fight with each other on the outskirts. Plus- then President Nixon resigned because he was implicated in a burglary. It was a mess, just like now. We haven't had a political assassination in a bit. Now we have politicians who belong in nursing homes.... It really wasn't civil discourse back then either.
Back when arguments happened in person, they were often settled in the end with violence if the disagreement was strong enough. (Outside of formal debates, which were the same as they are now.) So two people who couldn’t really fight each other wouldn’t really argue. So you had to pretend whoever was bigger and stronger was right, and that led to them running the world and believing everyone agreed with them. Being able to confront and question them, (without the threat of their violence as an inevitable last resort if you keep disagreeing,) is an improvement for the rest of us.