Shucking Oysters: Recreational Bitterness
By Alex Allen
Carie McGregor Warning: The following content is “so opinionated and sooo intelligent and so hypocritical and so damned boring” please turn page.
One of the many challenges we are facing more and more is what has been described as the rising “culture of contempt.” A culture where truth is distorted for the purposes of solely winning an argument or discrediting those with whom we disagree. Not only have we stopped listening to each other, we seem to feel perfectly justified to speak in disdainful, hate-filled ways. Even emails can be toxic. Yes it’s true, we’ve become ruder. And to be clear, we all have work to do.
Canadian journalist Carl Honoré wrote that there is “the chronic frustration that bubbles just below the surface of modern life. Anyone or anything that steps in our way, that slows us down, that stops us from getting exactly what we want when we want it, becomes the enemy. So the smallest setback, the slightest delay, the merest whiff of slowness, can now provoke vein-popping fury in otherwise ordinary people.” Road rage, air rage, shopping rage, ferry rage, vacation rage, political rage, social media rage. We live in an age of rage.
US public policy analyst Arthur C. Clark notes that it is online that we are seeing this “noxious brew of anger and disgust.” And not just contempt for other people’s ideas, but for other people. There are many sources of this outrage bias: divisive politicians, screaming internet bobble heads, hateful bloggers, angry activists and seemingly “everything on the contempt machines of social media.” What we need is not to disagree less, but to disagree better. Contempt makes landing on the same page virtually impossible, it is “either petty self-indulgence or cheap virtue signalling, neither of which wins converts.” Blocking, unfriending, or unfollowing online have become as natural as liking, nudging or sharing.
Vancouver-based etiquette expert and consultant Ann Elizabeth Burnett sees bad manners as a result of the ubiquitous “smart” phone. “There seems to be an overwhelming preoccupation, if not infatuation, with online information.” The more we engage in online spaces the less frequently we hang with real people in our lives. Burnett points to another cause of the downfall of politeness: a lack of accountability, particularly online, where there are no consequences for being rude, let alone mean behind the screen.
Do you remember the world before “smart” phones? Oh, it was a cold and unforgiving existence. People had to wait in grocery lines for minutes without distraction. At restaurants you had to hold a conversation and even look up at the person across the table. Ignoring friends and relatives required ingenuity. Today, like people wearing medical masks, people staring incessantly at their hand screens has become normalized.
There’s nothing wrong with posting selfies and pictures of meals you created, or sharing your happiness online. It’s when we crawl out of our caves and join in a random mob attack that is not right. Why do we thrive off of mob mentality? It’s about belonging apparently. If the majority of people are choosing to hate-on the same person, one is bound to feel inclined to do the same in fear of being judged or ostracized. It’s not nice, but it is human.
When social platforms become a “consensus chant” of “get her” we see the worst examples of mob-like hysteria with no constraints or safeguards. A 2016 study found that “catching rudeness is like catching a cold” – when we witness impoliteness, we are more likely to behave that way ourselves. We enjoy being morally outraged. “Recreational bitterness” directed often at someone who is guilty until maybe never proven innocent, makes us feel righteous. Social media has changed the public shaming environment, where it is easier than ever for shaming to spin out of control and be cruel and nasty.
Imagine being on the wrong side. The damage, deserved or not, is real and very lasting. Max Fisher wrote that our brains “process social ostracism as, quite literally, pain.” Being shunned hurts. On social media one person can with little warning, face the fury and condemnation of thousands. This “moral grandstanding” is everywhere and social platforms are rich with sources of moral outrage. The very structure of social media encourages this polarization.
Rudeness touches us all – whether through social media, public discourse, or even in conversations with friends and colleagues. Local government and community meetings that once featured heated but respectful debate are increasingly marked by shouting, personal attacks, and harassment. In a 2025 Canadian Municipal Barometer survey of elected officials, 63% of respondents said they had experienced some form of harassment during their term or campaign. The numbers also indicate that rising incivility is driving good candidates away from running for office and pushing those who are out.
As ethics lawyer Gregg Levine asked: “Why share ideas when venom, vitriol and vituperation are so easy and straightforward? Why show kindness when cruelty is venerated?” Rudeness has gotten people famous and wealthy. We see how those who lie, insult, and behave vilely are seen as authentic, “that somehow being crude elevates one’s stature as a plain-spoken person.” Trump and Polievre are such examples of authenticity in politics. They tell it like it is. Both share a contempt for journalists, one more vulgar than the other. Trump’s perceived authenticity allows him to push beyond norms and be gleefully divisive. What does it say about a president (and his administration) when the standard response to those who disagree is that they must be a loser, a moron, or deranged?
Civility is not about niceness. It’s about trust and good behaviour. It’s about disagreeing without being disagreeable. It’s about listening not rolling your eyes. As someone said, civility isn’t an accessory to be bolted on when convenient. It’s about empathy not judgment. This is not some new age world order, though it may be to some. Shaming, blaming, and self-righteousness can be extremely satisfying in the short term but quite ugly in the long. Sure, there is plenty to be outraged about, but when it is self-serving and nasty it becomes divisive and wrong. So ponder that, raging grasshoppers.
