Absolutely. The newspapers are more straightforward in reporting that fights with strings of profanity were a common way of avoiding actual fists or bullets. Pretty safe to conclude that “flannel-mouthed chiseling chuckleheaded gadabout coffee boiler” wasn’t part of that vocabulary.
They’re talking about the word ‘faggot’.
The use/mention distinction is a thing, people.
On the subject of dirty words being old, I took an English minor at university. For my English drama course, we studied a Medieval mystery play called Noe (Noah), one of the cycle attributed to the “Wakefield Master”. In it, quite a bit of slaptstick occurs between Noah and his contrarian wife. At one point, the Biblical patriarch tells her: “hold thy tong, ram-skit”, I.E., “hold your your tongue Ram Shit!”
As a software developer, I joke I have Developer’s Tourettes, because we all constantly mutter muffled curse words all day every day.
It is partly the fact that we typically have a reasonably inflated sense of our ability vs our actual ability, and partly that often the problems we face can be very hard (not so often technologically, but really often socially - nerd fights are real)
Psst, please see post 29, where leachcim nicely cleared this up, several days ago.
That in no way “clears it up”, substituting a chiefly British archaicism for a euphemistic initialism is just forcing more searching on the part of the person asking. Just tell them what word was being minced.
Standards are outdated, society is more crude, and Trump is President. Again.
Obviously these things have nothing to do with each other.
We’ve become balkanized over the years, each of us being able to live in our own media bubble, rarely, if ever, having need to socially engage with those who aren’t within our bubble. Is it possible fashion is a reflection of this? Thirty years ago I don’t ever recall someone boarding a flight here in the United States while wearing their pajamas. Since we tend to live in our own little bubble these days, who cares what most people think about how we look?
Thirty years ago there was a considerably sharper distinction between “pajamas” and “daywear”. I honestly can’t tell with many of my students whether what they’re wearing to class is just comfy “athleisure” or literal sleepwear. Ot whether their footwear is slippers or house shoes or slip-ons or sandals or what.
And I figure if I can’t tell what they’re wearing, then I have no grounds to criticize them for wearing “the wrong thing”. Same for air travel outfits, IMHO.
Also, thirty years ago flying was not such an ordeal as to make people cling to whatever scraps of comfort they can find.
I do criticize those trying to use a cotton/poly hoodie as a rain jacket, however.
IMHO, you need to wear tough practical shoes and clothing on a flight. Witness the young woman whose airplane crashed in the jungle, and all she has was a sundress and some flipflops or similar. She, by dint of will and luck, managed to make out, but suffered terribly due to no shoes (they fell off) and impractical clothes. Plan for the worst, I say, since it doesnt really take much to don sneakers, jeans and a light sweater or jacket, then change once you get there. I mean, no crash helmet- dont get crazy. But normal comfortable clothes is safe.
People dressed for flying- men wore dress jackets or blazers, etc. Not to forget the plane was smokey, and the food was bland. Better than a bag of pretzels, sure.
Maybe 50 or 60, but not 30 years ago. At least not in my experience.
30 years ago? That was like the 70’s or 60s, right? 
My recollection is that 30-40 years ago the seats were large enough to be comfortable even in coach class, and it wasn’t unusual to find yourself seated next to an empty seat. Nowadays they seem to have perfected the art of packing people in as tightly as physically possible. (Granted I took up less room in my 20s, as well 
)
Yeah, I started flying semi-regularly in the 90s, and people just wore normal street clothes. I don’t think I’ve ever been on a flight where more than a handful of men were wearing suits.
Even Geoffrey Chaucer was pretty racy, and that was the late 1300s.
The Miller’s tale has a gentleman kissing someone’s arsehole.
And pajamas themselves are derived from colorful, loose-fitting daywear worn in the Near East and South Asia, like the salwar or the sharwal. It was Western culture who appropriated them and delegated them to sleepwear.
Airplanes and seats are the same width as ever. A new production 737 has the exact same fuselage barrel as a 1960s 707. Six abreast is still the norm in coach. As is 4 abreast in first.
You’re right that back in the 1960s airplanes often flew with half the seats occupied. Nowadays they’re almost all full almost all the time. So the empty adjacent seat is a largely a thing of the past. And has been since about the mid 1990s when yield management got skilled and then later when the internet enabled last minute dump-sales to fill the planes. But that trend towards always full flights started in 1978 when US air travel was deregulated.
Now seat spacing fore and aft has gotten closer over the years. No debate there. Seats have also gotten thinner fore/aft, so some of the numeric difference you might read vs the old days is not a loss of usable space.
Americans are also 10% heavier than they were in 1990.
Also, for many people, air travel is one of the rare times they’re in a real crowd. Live at home, work at home, watch movies at home, shop in not very crowded stores, don’t ride crowded public trans, don’t stand in long lines, etc.
It all adds up to a more crowded experience. Both actually more crowded, and with an increased perception of unfamiliar and hence uncomfortable amounts of crowding.
What I think is being lost is context. Whereas once there were distinct contexts for formal situations, informal situations, crude, sexualized, whatever, it’s all becoming collapsed together, so it’s not as easy to know what’s appropriate or accepted in a given situation.
To use a different examples applied to words rather than styles, I have elsewhere lamented how the the word “salty” has become a synonym for “jealous” where it once was had connotations of crude or coarse, as a sailor or “sea salt” might behave. Now we have no words for the latter, and 2 words for the former. Some richness of expression has been lost, and I think language is poorer for it. That’s just one example of context collapse.
Same goes with other forms of behavior, when everything gets collapsed into one way of being, then paradoxically increased freedom of expression can lead to less of it, because there are fewer meaningfully distinct modes of expression. Though some may argue that homogenized culture isn’t due to contextual collapse, but rather that contextual collapse is the inevitable product of homogenized thought, ideas, and media.
Mostly loosening of standards. Everyone in the thread has made good points already so I’ll keep my response brief and address the quote in order.
It’s good and good for society that some standards have been loosened and bad that others have been loosened. People shouldn’t have to dress formally at all times or call each other sir and ma’am. I don’t think people should curse too often (or say otherwise vulgar things) for its own sake and when speaking to others. You should be able to communicate without excess vulgarity and be aware of the sensitive and graphic nature of certain topics and the time and place to talk about them. There is such a thing as being too open and honest. Certain kinds of dress are dumb and ugly at best (I know this is “subjective”) and impractical at worst and you shouldn’t always be wearing pajamas and sweatpants (or anything you’d normally wear inside your house) in public merely because you’re allowed to. The way people speak and dress does reflect the nature of current society and the mindset and views of the people who live in it. There are many things that aren’t immoral or even harmful but you still shouldn’t want to be the kind of person that engages in them.