LogFAQs > #976790661

Zero_Destroyer posted...

I agree with this, but it's a function of the candidates themselves. They are the ones who court controversy, pursue exclusionary and conspiratorial politics, and remain unpunished by their constituency for doing so. It seems inevitable that voters who elect carnival barkers might be seen as bad people to some extent or another.

In 2010, this wasn't really quite the same in America; candidates were not as aggressive, lines tended to exist, and people agreed that certain statements could, would, and should end your political career. Now, convicted and/or admitted sexual assault is insufficient to deter a voting base.

I do acknowledge shifting standards have affected this. Though personally I think it's the "engagement (aka conflict)" motives of media and social media that have really made modern times feel so different and antagonistic. Those motives and social media political team sports tribalism of woke vs anti-woke and all the surrounding noise is what IMO deranged the ability for civil good faith discussion. And downstream of that was the few politicians that deviate from previous minimum requirements for viability.

In other words I don't think it's the bad politicians being elected that caused the inability to have civil good faith conversations.

But rather I think it's the inability to have civil good faith conversations that caused the election of bad politicians.

That said, it would be foolish to ignore the feedback loop elements of that problem.