I tend to agree. It's tempting to jump in without much forethought the way things are at the minute.

it feels as though the rise of a certain modality of the internet in the 2010s - related to the colonizing of spaces and practices we find in Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, etc. -- has made us all slightly more glib and contentious than we were before. — John Doe

You could be right and maybe it's something we all need to be aware of and push back against more.

Tell you what, I'll stick a poll up later today. Final decision will be down to @jamalrob, but it will be worth gauging opinion. I am leaning towards thinking it's a good idea.

Having been an admod on both sites, I don't see any evidence standards were higher on old PF. There was no golden age in my view. There may be some difference as there is over time regardless of site as posters come and go, but I think what you are noticing is largely the effect of the default front page where more active and faster moving discussions dominate, and those are often the Shoutbox or political, and it's worth looking at doing something about that (it's possible to change the default view to categories rather than recent posts, for example). But certainly there is no greater tolerance for low quality posts here than there was on the old site, and there is no sudden drop in the philosophical skills of internet denizens. My take anyway.

We also had a debate forum that encouraged higher quality posts on the old site. We even invited some professional philosophers, like Chalmers or Searle, to put in their thoughts to organized questions of the sort. — Posty McPostface

That is one area where the old site had an advantage albeit a limited one as it was rare to get much engagement from guests. I remember Searle for example refused to post more than one reply in any discussion. Still though, I'm glad you brought it up as it's a line worth pursuing.

Anyway, I've split this into a new discussion in the hope that you and others can make specific suggestions for improving the site's quality, particularly in terms of encouraging a higher level of philosophical engagement. Maybe we have been too laissez-faire in that respect.

Well, I asked Hanover a couple of direct questions above on the racism issue, which he ignored. That's his prerogative, so I'm not going to bang my head against a brick wall on that one. If anyone has made their feelings clear about all that, it's me.

My point was that no one gets a pass, as Baden was suggesting that the Republicans caused the entire mess. — Hanover

Generally speaking they did. Clinton handed GW a booming economy and a budget surplus* and in eight years he turned it into a huge financial crisis and the worst deficits and debt you ever had, and in the meantime killed a huge number of people in a couple of pointless wars. Trump will find it hard to top that in terms of pure destruction. Of course, it's obvious any Dem congressmen who voted with GW both on the war and on reckless financial deregulation also deserve condemnation. They just had a much smaller part to play overall. And my basic point anyway was that less than two years in, the economy is not all Trump's doing. He's had an influence obviously, but like GW, he got handed a decent deal by his predecessor. It's not like things would have been much different if Clinton had been in power for a year and a half. And what extra impetus you got, Trump bought with a huge addition to your debt, so your kids will be paying for his ego boost. It's short-term fakeonomics. Enjoy it while it lasts.

*"annual reports showed surpluses of $69.2 billion in fiscal 1998, $76.9 billion in fiscal 1999, and $46 billion for fiscal year 2000. "

https://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/

I don't know what you can do at this point except laugh at this shit.

"Even if it's right next to you, you can't see it."

What it's like to talk to Trump supporters.

GW crashed the economy through idiotic policies of financial deregulation which Obama had to reverse, so he didn't continue what GW set in motion. He reversed a negative trend set in motion by GW. Trump is continuing a positive trend set in motion by Obama. I don't think that's hard to grasp.

And Trump can thank Obama. The economy merely continued on the trajectory he set. All Trump did was come in and balloon your deficit to give massive tax breaks to the rich and corporations. That might result in some short term gain but will cause huge problems later on. But, of course, Trump doesn't care about later on, or anything except the glory of Trump.

"Nine of the last 10 recessions have been under Republicans."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/11/07/trump-is-right-about-one-thing-the-economy-does-better-under-the-democrats/#5fec1c046786

Pop quiz: Which party has been better on the economy measured by GDP growth rates?

Answer: The Democrats

And Trump agrees (I guess he accidentally ran with the wrong party):
“I’ve been around for a long time and it just seems that the economy does better under the Democrats than the Republicans.”

See, the thing is, facts matter. And all your partisan nonsense is just verbal diarrhea only you and your deluded cadre of fellow nincompoops believe.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/11/07/trump-is-right-about-one-thing-the-economy-does-better-under-the-democrats/#5fec1c046786

It would be hardly surprising as the Democrat party was virulently racist at the time. Of course, there's absolutely no connection between that and Trump or today's Democrats.

Trump creates self esteem through jobs and a strong economy, while the Democrats give hopelessness and create resentment through welfare dependency — wellwisher

Yawn. The Republicans destroyed the economy, you nincompoop, largely due through promoting the type of financial deregulation Trump also supports. Obama fixed it and handed the fixed version on to Trump.

Let the criminals go free because they're on our side is what he's saying. Which is a fairly typical attitude of hardcore Trump supporters and of Trump himself, the "law and order" president.

@Hanover @ArguingWAristotleTiff Let me come at this way. How would you explain to a black person, say a black friend of yours, that their country is still a safe and welcoming place for them under a President that refers to them as the N-word and a country that thinks that's acceptable enough in a President to vote him into office*? What would you tell them?

Or, by the same token, how would you explain to a black child your support and vote for a President who would call his/her people the N-word? How would you explain his/her place in that alientating environment you've contributed to creating for him/her?

*Doesn't even have to be Trump or even the Republican party specifically. Trump is just a potential example.

You argue there is some moral imperative to abstain should your only choice of candidate be racist, else you'll somehow be guilty of racism by association. I just reject that as long as the person has no intention to bring about racist policy. — Hanover

This is a pretty weak argument. As if racists wouldn't let their racism leak into policy. Let's get real. There's a million ways that could happen and it very likely would. They don't have to specifically make it part of their platform. But, yes, you have a moral imperative to your fellow citizens, especially black citizens, not to vote in an overt racist or anti-semite or whatever, whether or not they have racist or anti-semite policies. It's about showing a minimum level of decency and solidarity. And apart from that, what kind of message does it send to the upcoming generation? Your reward for being a racist, is... President? It would send a horrible message, that racism is acceptable and that would encourage more racism, which you would be partly responsible for. You can't separate all this and be purely pragmatic about it as that's not dealing with the moral issue, so much as just ignoring it.

I also truly believe that Obama and Hillary harbor racist views as offensive as Trump's, just they're far more sophisticated, cautious, and civil not to say it in stark indefensible terms. — Hanover

On the basis of what? Shouldn't there be evidence? I mean, even in Trump's case, we are talking hypothetically, so far. Though I'm convinced he's a racist to some degree, he still has plausible deniability, so voting for him as things stand is just about defensible. An N-word tape would strip that away completely though. That's not just cranky granddad racism, that's in your face, fuck you, racism. As I said earlier there are levels and there has to be a line.

None appear to be good ideas, — Hanover

I knew you'd say that. I missed my chance to call @Benkei a left-wing fairy for thinking you'd agree with any of it.

Thank fuck for that. I've had enough making enemies for one night.

That leads to money too, but in the sense it's also propaganda. Prurience? Titillation? — tim wood

Not sure about prurience and titillation. That would depend on how the situation was presented. But in so far as a partner of another race is considered exotic, desirable etc., sure, business will use that.

One good thing about business is everyone's money is equally desirable.

Incidentally, @Benkei, my family is mixed race, so racism is not just a real problem for me as it would be even if everyone in my family and everyone I knew was white, it's also potentially a personal problem that I need to deal with.

Didn't get around to addressing that but yes, just like any serious ethical issue we take a side on. That should go without saying.

Indeed. It's just a bunch of raving white supremacists over here. Even those of us who are part black can't help ourselves: those confederate flags are just so handsome. — frank

Why do you respond to serious comments with sarcastic shit-posts? What do you achieve by it?

My guess as to why you're so interested in the question is that you're experiencing a interest-void at the moment. As soon as your attention wanders on to your Next Big Thing, the US and all its coarse oddity will slide from your field of vision like a bad dream. — frank

Ok, well that's just another highly ignorant comment. I've been very interested in international politics since I started on old PF close to ten years ago. That's not going to change.

Maybe America is just significantly more racist and tolerant of racism than I thought. I'm open to being moved on this. It's just not a direction I like being moved in. But there you are. Reality isn't always comfortable for any of us.

You get the point though. We have different backgrounds and different things seem obvious to us. It seems obvious to you that voters don't care (much) about their leaders being racist. It seems obvious to me that they do. What you've got to realize though is that America is exceptional here. There really is no other advanced democracy I can think of where a leader could survive re-election after using the N-word* (if Trump really could. I concede the possibility I may be wrong about that though I still would bet he wouldn't.)

*If anyone can think of one, let me know.

Yes, they do. So... You thought that if, for example, Theresa May was caught on tape using the N-word or whatever you thought the British equivalent was, she wouldn't have to resign, and the British people would just shrug their shoulders and look at the consumer confidence index or whatever it is? Because that's politics everywhere. I'm asking if you really thought that.

Got an answer to the question? Did you really presume that use of the N-word was acceptable by national leaders of developed countries around the world? Really?

Don't be a [self-censored]. In Western Europe, along with, I can fairly confidently add, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, use of the N word by a national leader would result in resigning in disgrace followed by unelectability (if they ever dared run for anything again). Last time I looked we had politics over here too. What's your exposure to anywhere outside America?

That's sad if true. Can't wrap my head around it. But then I don't live there and you do.

National insurance on top of that though, right?

Please, it is not lost on me as to the reasons others have been banned or willing left the forum based on this very issue of labeling others. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

You're not going to be in danger of being banned for saying you would vote for Trump even if he calls blacks the N-word. And I never expected you to take that position when I first said I thought it was to a degree racist (it's not directly racist and not a mod issue). But again, it's not about your feelings. Try to imagine your fellow black citizens reading this and how they would feel at you implying you would vote for someone who considers them "niggers".

I'm not sure how to interpret that. You mean you would pro-actively support Trump if he calls black people the N-word? Where would your line be then? What would he have to do to lose your support?

And by the way, my judgement is just my judgement (that that would count as being to some degree racist), people are going to come down differently on this issue. I'm not claiming to have the last word on it. But, yes, voting someone in who would call your fellow citizens the N-word, that's a position that I wouldn't have expected of you if it's the case.

I don't buy you being a victim of anything here, Tiff. But your answer is clear from this. That is very sad for you imho.

I think the safest way for me to answer such an absurd question — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Why is it an absurd question? The fact that you don't want to answer it doesn't make it absurd, just uncomfortable. It's a live possibility with Trump, and even if it wasn't, the answer should be easy. I mean, if someone said to me, "Would you continue to support Bernie Sanders if it turned out he called blacks the N-word? Or Jeremy Corbyn if it turned out he called Jews, kikes" (or name your leftie and your racial slur) my answer would be an unequivocal "No, of course I wouldn't". I'd drop them in a second. I don't see the difficulty here. Supporting obvious (as posed in the hypothetical) racists, anti-semites etc, is wrong. What's the problem saying that? Why play games with it?

Here's the important bit on that page in my view. Americans pay twice as much for a healthcare system that is significantly worse than most developed countries. And no, Trump is not going to change that, @ArguingWAristotleTiff. The only ones who will are those espousing single payer healthcare, which is what all those countries who spend less than you on healthcare and have better outcomes use.

I don't think we disagree all that much then except in terms of the tone I took and in terms of defintions. I'll summarize my view by saying that no decent human being (of my estimation) would vote for a racist (of the degree we discussed) except out of absolute desperation (e.g. threat of immediate financial ruin etc.), and I don't see that applying to the vast majority of Americans on either side. Selling out a whole group in society for some petty gain in taxes or whatever may not be unequivocally racist, I'll concede that, it might just be pure opportunism, but it would still be despicable and I would feel just as negatively towards anyone who would do that whether you call them racist or not. But again, it's hypothetical as Trump hasn't been proved as yet to be a racist in the sense the supposed tapes depict.

(And I emphasize again this applies to whatever politician and voter of whatever side. It just seems a lot less likely that it would come from a Dem. But it could).

Ok, so let's say I'm anti-abortion and strictly religious. The racist Trump is anti-abortion but the Democrat is pro-abortion. I vote Trump. Racist or not? The candidates are not representing single issues. Attempts to reduce it to that is what results, in my view, in unrealistic expectations of voting behaviour by average Americans. — Benkei

I get the point but my answer would be simple, you abstain or vote for a third party. In that way you neither support abortion or racism. (Note that in most states your vote would not have a hope in hell of having any practical effect anyway and it wouldn't be anything more than an expression of principle).

Or, I have my own business and can benefit from tax decreases. Am I supposed to vote against my self-interest because, besides the points I do like and want, the candidate is also a racist? — Benkei

That's no different in principle to saying if someone offers me 1000 bucks to call someone a nigger or to support someone else calling someone a nigger, do I do it because it's in my self-interest? No, I don't because a more important part of my self-interest than money is a basic level of moral integrity. I mean nothing angelic, just basic. If someone can't even get to that level, they're screwed.

In general, the first worry for most people is a job and stability. Everything else is secondary - even racism. — Benkei

Realistically, neither party is going to destroy any class of people financially. If it were a case of the only way to prevent Venezuela-style socialism was to vote for a racist Trump, I might be more sympathetic. But both parties are democratic, so there's no huge forseeable crisis to be avoided for voting for either that would justify throwing dignity in the trash can.

And if you or anyone else doesn't like the fact that I have a strong dislike for racists and racist sympathizers, it's just tough cheese. All the ad-homs in the world aren't going to change me on that point.

If someone votes for a candidate that is verified and unequivocally a racist or white nationalist or anti-semite or Nazi (or whatever), that makes them sympathetic to racism, white nationalism, anti-semitism or Naziism (or whatever). You might want to draw a distinction between being sympathetic to racism and being an actual racist. I take a more zero-tolerance view. So, yes, if 40% of Americans hypothetically voted for a hypothetical verified racist Trump (just as if they voted for David Duke) they would be sympathetic to racism and in my view racist to a degree (though not as racist as if they used the N-word themselves. There are levels of racism that start with thinking it's not such a bad thing and move all the way up to promoting it as an ideology).