Sargassum and Other Irritants

Sargassum picture: https://www.aoml.noaa.gov/

I opened a favorite saltwater fishing forum and a member had posted an update about sargassum conditions offshore. A reasonable enough thing to share. Within a few comments, another person had pivoted to the reflecting pool in Washington and algae blooms. Someone else called them an idiot. It escalated to f-bombs from there. By the time I scrolled past, nobody was talking about offshore conditions anymore.

That pattern used to live mostly in politics. For the past decade, public political discourse has run on contempt. Politicians model it. Cable hosts reward it. Algorithms surface it because outrage keeps people scrolling. The message, repeated millions of times a day, is that disagreement justifies contempt. You are not just wrong; you are stupid, corrupt, or evil.

That message did not stay in politics. People learned a behavior. When you disagree with someone, you attack the person. You do not argue the point. You question their intelligence, their motives, their worth. That approach feels satisfying in the moment and accomplishes nothing, but it has become the default in comment sections, workplace threads, and online communities that have nothing to do with any election.

The anger usually has little to do with the post that triggered it. Psychologists point to a few consistent sources. Relative deprivation is one: people compare themselves to others constantly, social media makes that comparison unavoidable, and the gap between where someone is and where they think they should be produces resentment. Displaced frustration is another: anger from a dead-end job, a stalled relationship, or money problems needs somewhere to go, and a stranger online is a safe target. Regret works similarly. People who feel stuck tend to lash out at those who appear to be moving. It presents as contempt but it is closer to grief. None of that excuses the behavior. It does explain why the attack is almost never really about you.

The research on this is consistent. A 2022 study in Communication Research by Rossini found that uncivil and intolerant discourse in online political talk follows recognizable patterns, and that exposure to it normalizes hostile language more broadly. Contempt spreads. It does not stay in its lane. Once a culture accepts that attacking the person is a legitimate response to disagreement, that norm shows up everywhere. A 2021 study in Science Advances confirmed that social media platforms amplify outrage expressions over time through reinforcement and norm learning, whether or not the designers intended it.

I am not sure most people notice when it happens to them. They open a thread about a hobby, a product, a teaching method, and find themselves either absorbing insults or throwing them. It feels normal because it has become normal. The political arena did not invent human contempt, but it mainstreamed a particular expression of it and then exported it everywhere else. And if you push back with a calm, reasoned reply, the hater has one move left: profanity. The argument is over for them the moment you ask them to defend a position.

That sargassum thread had dozens of replies by the time I stopped scrolling. Nobody changed their mind. Nobody learned anything about the fishing conditions. I closed the tab and went back to work. Some people are there to fight, not to think. Recognize them early and do not engage. Life is too short, and your time is worth more than their anger.