I kind of agree with you, but I think there's two threads here that need to be teased apart.
I agree that people get considered toxic because they're expressing views that are unpopular within the group in question. All groups have their sacred cows and enemies (where the belief in the truth of these views is often spread socially rather than developed intellectually), and people tend to not look kindly upon someone going against the standard line.
The second thread is that toxicity is not just a matter of the opinions being expressed but also the way they're being expressed. Eg when people are going out of their way to be rude to others, or where they're not arguing in good faith.
Or... toxic might be someone who is oversensitive, unable to accept other people have different viewpoints, and retreats to their safe space whenever someone disagrees with their world view...
The "toxic" people are trying to be honest about real issues, and they tend to get shouted down for it. Then the real issues persist, decade after decade, but they cannot be talked about, it's too politically incorrect. A few more people try, get shouted down, rinse and repeat the process.
Then people wonder why a segment of the population is extremely cynical and bitter and polarized when it comes to any sort of debate on controversial issues...
>I've found that when I actually talk to so-called "toxic" people politely, they are willing to listen. It's not them that are causing the polarization.
People who point out problems are called toxic, not because they are in anyway injuring others, but because attacking them is easier than addressing their criticism.
I guess I'm referring to general hate. A good political example would be "People voting for ________ are idiots."
Same thing in tech; a discussion about why you don't like a family of languages is great. A discussion about why people who use that family of language are all terrible curmudgeons probably isn't.
Overall, I think toxicity is something you know when you see. A well-worded, earnest disagreement is nowhere near toxic.
Pretty sure it's not assholes but rather people with opinions that the others hate. Or is that what "toxic assholes" means to you? Is expressing an assholey opinion in a polite respectful way is still toxic assholery? If that's the case, then you need to step back and work out how you decide what opinions are assholey.
To be honest, I found myself slightly offended at your original comment, but I decided not to say anything since I agreed with the overall point you were trying to make. This response makes me feel like I have to say something though. Sometimes the person calling everything else toxic is actually a source of toxicity. Frankly, as a white guy who has been known to wear hoodies, I don't like being grouped in with toxic assholes just because of my appearance, and I think you could convey your point better by learning to phrase it in a more respectful way. Instead of trying to call out an entire group of people based on gender and skin color, just point out that it's hard for toxicity to survive when surrounded by a large variety of viewpoints and backgrounds.
I think I probably could have caveated a little better, and said something like:
"People are throwing around the word 'toxic' far too freely. I'm worried about over-sensitivity and censorship. Because of these concerns, I'm apt to push back on characterizations that words and ideas are harmful, even if the ideas themselves are flawed and open to criticism. Specifically, flawed ideas that deserve to be criticized can't really hurt you in the way that 'toxic' implies."
I think you're getting closer to a more useful definition of "toxic" here than your original comment where you asserted "There is one clear side that is wrong".
The problem with this latter/original assertion is that you are at once acknowledging that there are "sides" and, therefore, a debate to be had but at once shutting it down as not worth having. Obviously, with this comment, it's clear you don't actually believe that, though.
> They are looking to spread hate.
Here's where I think you get closest to the root of what I think is the real origin of online toxicity. For lack of a better term, I think it's trolling for emotion.
I'm not convinced that even what you're saying, that they're looking to spread "hate", is strictly true, but I do agree that they're looking to invoke a strong emotional response, whatever that may be.
I'm pretty sure that some trolls don't even believe in the "side" they claim to support. The message doesn't even have to stand up to rational scrutiny, so it need not even have a true side.
> Hate is not a political opinion. Hate is not worth tolerating.
To the extent that such strong emotional response serves to shut down conversation, it's toxic, and I agree it's not worth tolerating.
However, I think it's dangerous to apply such broad labels, especially if it's focused on the opinions (e.g. racism) rather than the behavior (e.g. appeal to emotion).
I think perhaps what counts as toxic varies. If you lay out an argument of say why NFTs are great you might not just be met with negativity. Perhaps by dozens of replies. But is that toxic? With actual toxic behavior I mean what goes on in a Call of Duty game chat, or most YouTube comment threads . The actually toxic behavior is completely destroying conversations, not just filling them with negative responses. To see exchanges of (say) three messages without one being homophobic/racist
/spammy/.. is really common on HN. That immediately puts even the worst HN discussions in the top percentiles of online discussion.
> If you do have opinions that are very different from the norm, the toxicity is rampant.
In that there is disagreement or that the disagreement is presented in an especially toxic way? Because obviously arguing something that is way outside the norm will see most people disagree strongly (by definition) so one would expect negative and dismissive responses. That though doesn’t make for “toxic” discussions so long as everyone argues in good faith and is civil?
I think the point is, much like offensiveness toxicity is something that is percieved and not objectively determined. Some users and groups may be perceived to be toxic, while much of the user base may consider it positive. Two examples would be the_Donald and /r/late_stage_capitalism. Lot of people think those subreddits are toxic, but lots of users also like and participate in those subreddits.
If I'm in a physical community where the loudest, and most controversial members are making it a terrible experience for people inside and outside that community, and the leaders refuse to deal with it, I think a fair assessment is that the community is toxic.
I didn't say anything about toxicity, I don't know what that is and haven't found a clear definition. Hatred is a completely appropriate reaction to the percieved stupidity of others, its a human emotion like any other it can be expressed as vulgarities, capslock etc. but the expression isn't the problem here. You can clearly define vulgarity, or other types of unwanted behavior but this isn't enough for the self appointed tone police. We are not anything 'as a society', we are not a society, we are not even remotely in the same culture. We as different peoples that have to interact and if you make criteria based on the arbitray standards of civility based on your culture this is terrible for a number of different reasons.
Why are they toxic? They are toxic because they were excluded. So now you shame and exclude them further because they were excluded by someone before you. It's a brutal world we live in.
> “toxicity,” defined as rude, disrespectful, or unreasonable language that is likely to make someone leave a discussion. We specifically use the term toxicity, as opposed to words like “abuse” or “hate speech” for both practical and scientific reasons.
Scientific reasons? There's nothing scientific about a term so undefined that every person can have their own custom definition.
I agree that people get considered toxic because they're expressing views that are unpopular within the group in question. All groups have their sacred cows and enemies (where the belief in the truth of these views is often spread socially rather than developed intellectually), and people tend to not look kindly upon someone going against the standard line.
The second thread is that toxicity is not just a matter of the opinions being expressed but also the way they're being expressed. Eg when people are going out of their way to be rude to others, or where they're not arguing in good faith.
reply