We live in such divisive times that we can’t even all concede that the Taylor Swift weekend was pretty great for the city of Denver, the state of Colorado and area music fans.

Instead, response to the two sold-out concerts at Empower Field has been sharply divided between the Swifties … and the Swift Kick to the Teeth-ies. Along generational lines. Along economic lines. Somewhat along gender lines. We are so stuck in our polarizing ways that even suggesting something so evidently inarguable – this was good – has brought down more kneejerk hostility from Denver Downers than a monsoon hailstorm.

“Negative people are wild,” one Facebooker posted in response to some of the crude vitriol. Truer words …

Objectively speaking, this really was, for most non-agitated people, the feel-good story of the year. To review: Perhaps the biggest female pop star on the planet right now came to Denver. Beyonce, you say? Nope. The day after Swift left Denver, she officially became the first woman in history to have four records in the Top 10 albums chart at the same time. She had delivered two epic, 3 1/2 -hour shows that treated 146,000 of her faithful fans to a Super Bowl-worthy career retrospective that will leave them glowing for months. The Eras Tour is expected to become the highest-grossing tour of all time, earning a record-setting $1 billion in sales.

A think tank called Common Sense Institute came out with a report claiming that Swift’s Denver shows contributed up to $140 million to Colorado’s GDP. An unknowable number of concertgoers traveled to Denver for the show, and it was evident all around Mile High Stadium that money being spent on food, transportation, hotel rooms and countless other taxable goodies were tangibly benefiting businesses in the immediate vicinity.

Most important, Swift came to town and by example empowered anyone of any gender who has ever felt bullied or marginalized that you can rise to the top of an industry that is not built for you. Swift showed us an unapologetically normal woman who creates entire communities of people just looking for a wholesome place to play and be together. Swift encourages her fans to be nice to each other. To trade friendship bracelets. To be self-sufficient and adopt a positive self-image. As social poster Craig Gibbs put it: “In a world of ‘us vs. them’ and other artists talking about shooting people in the head, a little positivity is a good thing.” He’s a father who was impressed not only because it was a great show “but because everyone made a point to be nice to each other,” said Gibbs, who won’t take his daughter to Broncos games anymore because that is “a very different atmosphere at the very same stadium.”

I wasn’t even at the Swift concerts, but I took definite note that Denver seemed to be a nicer city, if only for those two days, in part because of the energy all things Swift brought to our city.

That is, until I read a fusillade of bitter responses to my social posts emphasizing the positive aspects of Swift’s visit. Like that she sent a $25,000 gift to the Food Bank of the Rockies, enough to provide more than 75,000 meals to Denver’s hungry. That Gov. Jared Polis’ staff posted several messages welcoming Swift – and her economic boost – to Colorado. That the highly praised choreographer of the tour is Colorado’s own Mandy Moore. (One guy was really angry when he realized she’s not the singer of the same name!)  

I was naively expecting mostly like-minded responses like this one from Betty Knutsvig Krause: “I love Taylor Swift. Not only is she an amazing singer and songwriter, but she also has a beautiful soul.” Or from John Ianitello, who wrote, “I don’t know if anyone could top what she and her dancers, singers, musicians and visual artists displayed over the last two enchanting, mesmerizing days.”

It was, as Denver stage director Stacey Ryfun D’Angelo put it: “a moment in history, that’s for sure.”

OK, so the “Taylor Swift for President” meme was a bit much. But the nasties were over the top.

Several dismissed Swift’s food-bank donation as a tax write-off – as if that in any way minimizes its practical impact. One outlier called the amount barely enough to pay for the non-profit’s “management bonuses.” (Say … what?) Yes, in the midst of a homeless crisis our new mayor just declared a citywide emergency to address, a few people actually found ways to trash Swift’s gesture to feed 75,000 people. 

What is wrong with us?

Others misguidedly attributed scalpers commanding up to $10,000 a ticket to Swift’s personal greed. Fact check: She saw none of that. Those who paid attention bought tickets at face value when they went on sale in November. Tickets ranged from $50-$500 plus fees, with the average price about $75. That didn’t stop one detractor from accusing Swift of “leveraging a broken system to her benefit.”

A survey attributed to QuestionPro found the average out-of-town Swiftie spent an average of $1,300 on show-related expenses, including tickets, travel and lodging while in Denver. One poster extrapolated from that factoid that some of those who blew their discretionary income on Swift tickets surely did so at the expense of paying their rent or utility bills. Meaning, I kid you not: Taylor Swift is a major cause of homelessness.

That’s actually a real economic principle. It’s called “substitutionary spending,” and Pat Garofalo, author of a Substack newsletter called “Boondoggle” just invoked it to discredit the Swift economic impact angle altogether. As reported by Corey Hutchins, co-director of Colorado College’s Journalism Institute, Garofalo dismissed widespread economic cheerleading as “bogus hype.” He believes that hometown Swifties simply shifted their discretionary spending from any other entertainment option to Swift’s concert – so it’s not new money. And even if the tour did generate some original spending from out-of-towners, Garofalo dismissed that as statistically insignificant.

Why does it matter? Because, Garafolo told Hutchins, overestimating the impact that a concert event like Swift’s can have on a local economy “leads policymakers to make bad decisions, and leads to voters rewarding them for those bad decisions.”

This is a divide that pitted men vs. women, Boomers vs. Gen Zers, and econominc intellectuals vs. … well, you know. 

What is the trigger?

I’m fascinated to know what it is that triggers us to share an instant negative opinion on a positive social post or to fire off a nasty email to a reporter with the hopeful intention of ruining that person’s day. As a lifelong recipient of a steady stream of, shall we say, “provocative mail,” (OK, hate mail), I’ve never quite grasped that synapse that drives contrarians to construct some venal putdown or divebomb in on an otherwise placid social post with toxic word gas. Nastiness always says so much more about the attacker than the attacked. I just don’t understand malicious glee, as a concept.

Life is too short to be so angry.

Don’t get me wrong. Free speech rocks, and you are free to not get Swift’s appeal and keep right on walking. But my patience wears thin for those who stop and drop personal attacks onto the person herself.

One man called Swift a satanist. Another, a liar. Another, a “hoochie.” Others called her mainstream trash, fanatical, unattractive, dangerous and other words I’m surprised got past Facebook’s algorithm. 

One man said “Swift is art on the level that McDonalds is food.” Another called Swift’s music “cotton candy for the brain.” (Meow!!) 

All this contempt and downright misogyny … and for what? A hypocritical politician? A rapist? A pedophile?

No … for Taylor frigging Swift.

Bree Davies, host of the popular daily CityCast Denver podcast, suggested on Twitter that “if we could harness the energy of all the angry emails media outlets get from men about Taylor Swift, I bet we could power the whole Earth for three weeks.” (I have enough stored up to make a plutonium demon core, Bree.)

Karyn Pawelka Truitt hit the big old elephant in the room square in the head when she wrote: “All this angst over a young woman making thousands happy, boosting the economy, and providing a somewhat positive role model.”

People, Davies followed, “really don’t like women succeeding publicly.”

Bottom line, for all you Swift-hating men out there, in the opinion of poster Melissa Preston Vaughn: “If she were a man … she’d be THE MAN!”

But here’s the thing. This stream of personal attacks against Swift were not all coming from men: Women denigrated her talent and even critiqued her body with equal, glib furor.   

“She lost me the first time I heard her even ATTEMPT to carry a tune way back,” said one woman. Another outright stated that “educated women don’t support Taylor Swift.” Another called her “as banal as a brick.”

Where, I feel the need to know, is all this anger coming from? I think you really have to harbor a fundamental unhappiness in your life – not to simply dislike Taylor Swift or her music, but to feel urgently compelled to proactively spread it. People become so invested in being angry about the weirdest stuff.

“I detect a lot of misogyny, resentment and jealousy in these comments over a successful, empowered and talented woman,” said poster Tara Skye Goldin. “I doubt that there would be so many snarky comments over a male artist.”

I side with sanity, common decency … and Goldin, who added: “If I had a daughter, I would be proud to have her be like Taylor Swift and have her as a role model – talented, successful, smart, kind and charitable.”

And I side with Andrew Morris, who sees it this way: “People like her. People don’t like her. I’m amazed by the number of people who hurl personal insults either way. It’s OK to have dissenting views and tastes without all the polarizing rhetoric. The larger issue isn’t whether or not you like an artist or not. It’s that you think your opinion is fact either way. Tragic state of civil discourse.”

As Swift herself said: “No matter what happens in life, be good to people. Being good to people is a wonderful legacy to leave behind.”