With respect, I have a different perspective on this:
Common courtesy is the foundation of any society that functions at something above primal power struggles, and in fact, even animals observe certain formalities to prevent every difference of will from turning into a knock-down drag-out battle for supremacy.
Why should we retain the mask?
Because the human condition is often a very difficult one: everyone has sore spots, âtriggers,â insecurities, hatreds and biases, and raw screaming rage or pain from life events that they have to carry out into the world, into the workplace, into the high street and online.
Asking for common courtesy and the recognition of another person as also human and deserving of basic good treatment, even if not on the level of heartfelt sympathy and allegiance, surpasses all attempts to FORCE compliance and mind-control that have largely replaced the idea of simply being polite, and which are now causing us so much social upheaval.
To use what I hope is a relatively uncontroversial example, no laws against âfat shaming,â or prohibition of talk of âhealthyâ food choices or being of a ânormalâ weight would be necessary, if everyone was able to resist the degenerate and fleeting gratification of insulting people who carry a lot of body fat.
Modelling excellence is the superior tactic, in situations where people must share the same space and are not able to completely annihiliate each other.
Rudeness simply leads to an arms race over who can most effectively silence the other, or acquire the social, legal, or physical power by which to control the âopponentâsâ actions.
Remove the mask of courtesy, expose the ugly seething mess that is in many peopleâs minds, and something much harsher and less agreeable will usually be called for to replace that benign mask.
Good manners are the key to being able to function amongst people one may privately dislike, despise, or be at odds with, but still, need to exist alongside.
I am therefore a proponent of simple good manners, which are far more evolved than any form of thought-control or drastic sanctions, and I think our society has gotten worse with the advent of âlet it all hang out/speak your truthâ from the 60âs onwards, which has now, naturally, evolved itself into some quite draconian thought-control trends.
I believe someoneâs right to âswing their fistâ verbally and in text ends where someoneâs elseâs nose begins, or in this case, where their basic personhood stands to be demeaned and dragged down by the harsh words of another.
Make rudeness the norm, and that justifies locking down not just the superficial external actions, but also the very thoughts behind them: this is scary, and far worse than voluntary masks of courtesy used to smooth social interaction.
I feel very strongly about this and as with the mockery of âthoughts and prayersâ thatâs quite common, anything that tries to replace it is usually far worse and far more restrictive, because it naturally develops into thought-policing.
Regarding âthoughts and prayers,â it doesnât harm anyone to say they are thinking of a friend, colleague, or passing acquaintance when that person is in pain - telling someone whoâs in the first raw stages of grief or shock that âuh yeah but did you see these amazing new shoes I got at an 80% discount?â (or âwell he should have seen that one coming!â) just because that is what is ACTUALLY uppermost in the mind, is the polar oppositie of ascended behaviour: even cattle and rodents have formalities and manners they use to prevent physical clashes and violent retribution.
Donât believe me? Thatâs fine, and yes there is a case for strategic ârudenessâ in some situations, especially where we are at a point that people are fearing even having certain opinions. But I speak of a desirable overall goal for a world full of individuals and groups who may find each other annoying, and not exceptional cases.
Watch the whole âinsect politicsâ speech by Brundlefly in the old movie The Fly for more on this.
I generally agree.
But, western/Europeanised society is built upon the foundation of the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. And this is our common expectation of others, as well as ourselves.
Itâs not attained perfectly and in many situations (self-defence, career ambitions, anything requiring aggression or domination) may require other tactics, but we have mostly grown used to it as the foundation stone of our society, and would fare poorly in societies or eras where itâs NOT the expected norm, like sheep to the slaughter.
I will avoid being political except to mention that the cultural clash between people who assume goodwill on this basic level and those for whom it is not, and never has been, a virtue to extend to outsiders is at the heart of the news almost every day.
But all groups have some degree of it, just with different boundaries (the faithful, the gang, etc) and I think it has genuine value for in-groups, bonded by trust and some shared agenda or common factors.
Can it ever be perfectly attained? Probably not, humans are prickly, competitive and sneaky, and often lack basic self-awareness. 
I offer this:
