11 ms·

I can't wait for the word "toxic" to drop out of favor. It implies that the person is not just giving a bad opinion, but is in fact fundamentally flawed and dan

by floren 9y ago

I can't wait for the word "toxic" to drop out of favor. It implies that the person is not just giving a bad opinion, but is in fact fundamentally flawed and dangerous. Arsenic isn't toxic because it had a bad day at work, arsenic is by its nature a deadly poison and you can't change it, only avoid it. The vast majority of people labeled "toxic", though, are just humans with a variety of opinions and beliefs, some you may agree with and some you surely disagree with. They may change these beliefs, but not by being vilified and told they are intrinsically bad.

dredmorbius 9y ago
There are in fact system dynamics in which specific behaviours are unhealthy. Toxic, if you will. Consider these, generally, hygiene factors. There are substances which are toxic in specific concentrations or circumstances, which are otherwise healthy: oxygen, CO2, water, vitamin D, salt, nutritional iron. Certain forms of discourse. My view increasingly isn't that there are things, but interactions or behaviours. A thing isn't, but is what it does or how it behaves. (This ... tends to simplify numerous ontological questions.)
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  > My view increasingly isn't that there are things, but interactions or behaviours. A thing isn't, but is what it does or how it behaves. The "belief in things" is itself a cognitive simplification we make, probably for the sake of efficiency. To use a programming analogy, toxicity as a concept is a function of at least three arguments - toxic(what, to-what, context) - but we attach it as a label to the first argument and store it there. Compare e.g. with beauty, itself a function of at least two arguments - beautiful(what, to-whom). But we usually assume to-whom = "human like me", and stick the whole thing as a label on a thing, because 99% of the time, that's the correct thing to do (incidentally, the quote "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is literally a reminder that the concept of beauty is a function of multiple values). Confusing the "arity" of concepts seems to be the cause of quite a lot of misunderstandings between people.
  - dredmorbius 9y ago
    What's your meaning of arity here? "Things" with some bounded shape or form (or other properties) may be related to perceptual apparatus. We see, or hear or smell or taste or feel, etc., the boundaries, emissions, or other perceptible manifestations of objects or phenomena. If you will, those are their interfaces. As in other domains, an interface may reveal, or conceal, some more complex back-end, inner working, or larger system.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      Arity, as in number of arguments to function. As in, beauty(who to-whom &optional context) confused as beauty(who).
      - dredmorbius 9y ago
        Got it. I've been thinking on Aristotelian categories over the past couple of years. Thought occurs that all of them are relations, though with varying degrees of dependence on the observer. Related, a ~1835 essay on value by W.F. Lloyd notes that all value is relative. That's not a universally held view, but is, I believe, correct.
white-flame 9y ago
Exactly. Giving a massive benefit of the doubt that their complaints can be non-partisan, some alternative terms that might be more correct to their concerns might be: - Polarizing - Extremist/Fundamentalist/Zealotry - Trolling However, these sorts of things are legitimately "toxic" to a welcoming discussion environment (ie a large social site's revenue stream), but it's being conflated as being "toxic" to society in general, which itself is an extremist perspective. :-P
- mwfunk 9y ago
  I would say that all of those things are toxic to society in general. Those behaviors just tend to be more muted out in the real world where acting shitty is more likely to have immediate consequences. I can't think of any non-contrived situations where those behaviors aren't equally damaging to social bonds in any situation, whether it's an online community or a government or a family or an organization. They all reduce enlightenment, are always irrational, and always increase human misery, even if it's just a teensy bit in the most benign cases.
  - white-flame 9y ago
    Yes, you agree that they're "toxic" to communication, which I stated. But I wouldn't say they, for example, reduce "enlightenment"; they're a product of not being "enlightened" (for whatever measure you use). All of these are products of the failings/weaknesses of humanity, not causes of them. Their presence is to be expected and crops up in everybody, not just in some "toxic" subset of people that can be excluded.
    - defined 9y ago
      This is true, but “toxicity” seems to arise much more frequently in some people than others. In Robert Sutton’s book, “The No Asshole Rule”, he describes what it takes to be a “certified asshole”: > A person needs to display a persistent pattern, to have a history of episodes that end with one “target” after another feeling belittled, put down, humiliated, disrespected, oppressed, de-energized, and generally worse about themselves. Put another way, in the series “Justified”, Raylan Givens opines (paraphrasing here): > If you come across an asshole in the morning, well, you just met an asshole. If you’re coming across assholes all day long, maybe _you’re_ the asshole. Assholes at work create a genuinely toxic work environment. People get sick, quit, and even commit suicide. It can be argued, with some merit, that this differs from the Internet in that the assholes are usually in a position of power to abuse their subordinates, while on the Internet - at least in chat rooms and the like - people can withdraw from hateful environments by just closing the tab on the browser. That’s not my point, though; I’m asserting that people who show a “persistent pattern” of promoting hatred of particular groups, inciting violence, and convincing people of harmful information through lies, half-truths, and myths, deserve to be labeled as “toxic”, and can be far more dangerous to society than a common or garden corporate asshole, because their messages can - and do - influence millions of people towards antisocial or, at very least, irrational thoughts and activities.
guelo 9y ago
Poisoning a conversation is a thing. And if you've participated in online discussions I don't see how you can honestly say it doesn't exist. You're implying that in every thread where a troll shows up to derail the conversation we all have to stop what we're doing and give thoughtful responses to the troll to show them the error of their ways. But then the only possible conversation is debates with trolls. But that gives too much power to the trolls. Sometimes you just have to shut the trolls up so you can talk about what you want to talk about.
- derefr 9y ago
  No, the parent was simply saying that “trolling” (or, having a bad opinion) doesn’t imply a character flaw, and that we shouldn’t use language that makes that implication, lest we start to think of people who have bad opinions as irredeemable. People can do wrong without being fundamentally bad, broken people. If we treated, say, driving a car the way people treat Internet discourse, you would be dragged out of your car and stoned to death the first time you cut someone off. Yes, sure, ignore posts that seem like trolling. Filter or block them, even. But perhaps you could give the people behind those posts a second chance, before writing them off for life for one post.
  - crpatino 9y ago
    You know, nobody has been actually linched for either trolling or reckless driving. Maybe some were killed, if they crossed the wrong kind of victim, but that's the risk you assume when being a jerk. On the other hand, I would fully support a law that would give a temporary suspension on people's driving licenses if there was a reliable way to tell that they have an habit of cutting other drivers off. And to make it a permanent ban on operating any kind of vehicle if you were a reincident. Again, it would be greatly inconvenient for them, but there must be some point when the rights of the public superseed the rights of individual assholes.
- jessaustin 9y ago
  Implying dishonesty is toxic! Oh haha well done...
- 9y ago
toomanybeersies 9y ago
On that allegory though, the poison is in the dose. Small amounts of copper are required in your diet to keep your body functioning. However, large doses of copper are toxic. Same goes for most drugs.
- crpatino 9y ago
  Likewise, small amounts of trolling are benefical to online debate? Unless you imply this would be a reminder to everyone what happens when moderators get overly permisive, I do not see how that would be the case
nradov 9y ago
Totalitarian ideologies such as Communism, Fascism, and Islamic Fundamentalism are inherently, irretrievably toxic. They place the entire future of the human race at risk. I don't favor censoring them but we need to ceaselessly oppose them and shun their proponents.
tmuir 9y ago
I submit to you, a subreddit I've found in the past week that is absolutely horrifying, and I think stands quite counter to the "variety of opinions" model you put forth. This isn't anything visually graphic, but the opinions expressed in this subreddit make me believe that these people are preparing for a violent insurrection, full stop. https://www.reddit.com/r/CBTS_Stream/ https://www.reddit.com/r/CBTS_Stream/ CBTS stands for the Calm Before The Storm. These people follow an anonymous online poster named "Q" who posts vague, short posts on some other site (not sure where), and then lots of other subscribers repost these and form general conspiracy theories that all revolve around the deep state, the NWO, and other nefarious groups colluding to remove Donald Trump from office. Its not your standard fare related to the ongoing investigations in congress or the special counsel, these people are the dangerous combination of paranoid, gullible, and angry. As an outsider just perusing, its obvious that this place is crawling with charlatans and con artists who understand that they are addressing a crowd of people who are more prone to believe an idea simply because of the tantalizing ramifications of if it turned out to be true. Anyone can spout out the most hairbrained idea, and three people will show up to give vague, outrageous stories that confirm the original idea. I don't have an answer, but surely there must be a level of fomenting anger and general mob action that deserves some sort of modulation/regulation.
- smsm42 9y ago
  > the opinions expressed in this subreddit make me believe that these people are preparing for a violent insurrection, full stop. What makes you think so? I've looked at it (admittedly, didn't spend too much time) and it looks pretty standard fare for a subreddit - or any other forum like it. It's slogan is "BE LOUD. BE HEARD.". People that are preparing violent insurrection don't want to be loud and heard. They want to be silent and invisible until they have enough people and materiel overthrow the government. People that want to be participating in a democratic debate want to be heard. There's no point in being heard by the other guy if the next thing you're planning to do is shooting him (well, maybe if you demand surrender, but I see no such demands there and if would be weird to do it on Reddit). The only point I can see of being loud and heard if you try to convince somebody, or at least gather support - e.g. for winning al election, or pressuring an elected representative into doing something by showing them how many people demand it. All that is part of the normal democratic process. Even if people that are there hold some unacceptable views (I have no idea if they do, but even we for a minute assume they do) that doesn't mean they are planning violence. What is the evidence they do?
jamesrcole 9y ago
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.
- Kalium 9y ago
  I suspect the two are being conflated, and not entirely accidentally. In many social circles, going against someone's sacred cow is viewed as essentially no different from going well out of your way to be rude or argue in bad faith. This offers a signal advantage - it means it becomes acceptable to silence people who you disagree with on the basis that they're behaving badly.
Mozai 9y ago
I believe the metaphor of "poisonous chemical" has run away with you. Is it about the listener ingesting knowledge that is harmful ("grokking"), or is it about the speaker making a mistake and thus everything that speaker has done / will do is a mistake?
wfo 9y ago
Spoken like someone who hasn't spent much time on reddit recently. Since the massive surge in white nationalist, alt-right, and other right-hate ideologies online (and particularly the creation of the_donald, a subreddit which has shockingly avoided the ban hammer for an inexplicably long time given its obvious explicit purpose: to be an echo chamber to spread hate, scream slurs, threaten people with death and genocide, and dox enemies). In literally any part of reddit, if there is any post on anything that could be construed as racial or about any gender, even innocuous, hordes of extremist right wing trolls descend upon it and spew horrifying screeds of hate. They abuse people into silence. They are toxic. These things leak. And toxicity is real. Hate begets hate, saying nasty horrible things to people and advocating for genocide are not innocuous "beliefs that other people might have" they are unacceptable behavior in civil society. If you do this in real life you are ostracized, beaten, you lose your job, you are abandoned by your family and friends. And this is good. Social signals and actions to prevent "toxic" behavior have existed since forever. But the Internet is the property of a few companies who are loath to enforce those same social rules. Sometimes, they get pushed far enough they feel have to.
- slayed0 9y ago
  You're mixing beliefs with tactics/behavior. The behavior you described is "toxic" no matter what your beliefs are. I agree that the lack of repercussions and social feedback online lead to an increase in people acting like this and it is a problem for pretty much all public forums. However, it is neither constructive, nor is it truthful, in my opinion, to attach this behavior to a single group, side, or set of beliefs. All you'll end up doing is driving moderates of said group further to the extremes. You can call out ideas you think are bad and you can call out behavior you think is bad, but "other-ing" an entire group based on the worst actions at the fringes of their membership just isn't going to change any minds. It only widens the divide. Edit: The exception, of course, is if the behavior that is at issue is actually encouraged by a foundational belief of the group.
  - wfo 9y ago
    >Edit: The exception, of course, is if the behavior that is at issue is actually encouraged by a foundational belief of the group. I'm glad you added this, I agree with you in general. I'm not interested in "other-ing" right-wing people, Republicans, moderates, conservatives, but I'm very interested in "other-ing", e.g. neo-nazis or Klan members. I am not worried about neo-nazis becoming more extreme (? is this possible?) and I also am not willing to let their sensibilities or concern for their feelings dictate any part of my or society's behavior.

by floren 9y ago

dredmorbius 9y ago

There are in fact system dynamics in which specific behaviours are unhealthy. Toxic, if you will. Consider these, generally, hygiene factors. There are substances which are toxic in specific concentrations or circumstances, which are otherwise healthy: oxygen, CO2, water, vitamin D, salt, nutritional iron. Certain forms of discourse. My view increasingly isn't that there are things, but interactions or behaviours. A thing isn't, but is what it does or how it behaves. (This ... tends to simplify numerous ontological questions.)

TeMPOraL 9y ago
> My view increasingly isn't that there are things, but interactions or behaviours. A thing isn't, but is what it does or how it behaves. The "belief in things" is itself a cognitive simplification we make, probably for the sake of efficiency. To use a programming analogy, toxicity as a concept is a function of at least three arguments - toxic(what, to-what, context) - but we attach it as a label to the first argument and store it there. Compare e.g. with beauty, itself a function of at least two arguments - beautiful(what, to-whom). But we usually assume to-whom = "human like me", and stick the whole thing as a label on a thing, because 99% of the time, that's the correct thing to do (incidentally, the quote "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is literally a reminder that the concept of beauty is a function of multiple values). Confusing the "arity" of concepts seems to be the cause of quite a lot of misunderstandings between people.
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  What's your meaning of arity here? "Things" with some bounded shape or form (or other properties) may be related to perceptual apparatus. We see, or hear or smell or taste or feel, etc., the boundaries, emissions, or other perceptible manifestations of objects or phenomena. If you will, those are their interfaces. As in other domains, an interface may reveal, or conceal, some more complex back-end, inner working, or larger system.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    Arity, as in number of arguments to function. As in, beauty(who to-whom &optional context) confused as beauty(who).
    - dredmorbius 9y ago
      Got it. I've been thinking on Aristotelian categories over the past couple of years. Thought occurs that all of them are relations, though with varying degrees of dependence on the observer. Related, a ~1835 essay on value by W.F. Lloyd notes that all value is relative. That's not a universally held view, but is, I believe, correct.

white-flame 9y ago

Exactly. Giving a massive benefit of the doubt that their complaints can be non-partisan, some alternative terms that might be more correct to their concerns might be: - Polarizing - Extremist/Fundamentalist/Zealotry - Trolling However, these sorts of things are legitimately "toxic" to a welcoming discussion environment (ie a large social site's revenue stream), but it's being conflated as being "toxic" to society in general, which itself is an extremist perspective. :-P

mwfunk 9y ago
I would say that all of those things are toxic to society in general. Those behaviors just tend to be more muted out in the real world where acting shitty is more likely to have immediate consequences. I can't think of any non-contrived situations where those behaviors aren't equally damaging to social bonds in any situation, whether it's an online community or a government or a family or an organization. They all reduce enlightenment, are always irrational, and always increase human misery, even if it's just a teensy bit in the most benign cases.
- white-flame 9y ago
  Yes, you agree that they're "toxic" to communication, which I stated. But I wouldn't say they, for example, reduce "enlightenment"; they're a product of not being "enlightened" (for whatever measure you use). All of these are products of the failings/weaknesses of humanity, not causes of them. Their presence is to be expected and crops up in everybody, not just in some "toxic" subset of people that can be excluded.
  - defined 9y ago
    This is true, but “toxicity” seems to arise much more frequently in some people than others. In Robert Sutton’s book, “The No Asshole Rule”, he describes what it takes to be a “certified asshole”: > A person needs to display a persistent pattern, to have a history of episodes that end with one “target” after another feeling belittled, put down, humiliated, disrespected, oppressed, de-energized, and generally worse about themselves. Put another way, in the series “Justified”, Raylan Givens opines (paraphrasing here): > If you come across an asshole in the morning, well, you just met an asshole. If you’re coming across assholes all day long, maybe _you’re_ the asshole. Assholes at work create a genuinely toxic work environment. People get sick, quit, and even commit suicide. It can be argued, with some merit, that this differs from the Internet in that the assholes are usually in a position of power to abuse their subordinates, while on the Internet - at least in chat rooms and the like - people can withdraw from hateful environments by just closing the tab on the browser. That’s not my point, though; I’m asserting that people who show a “persistent pattern” of promoting hatred of particular groups, inciting violence, and convincing people of harmful information through lies, half-truths, and myths, deserve to be labeled as “toxic”, and can be far more dangerous to society than a common or garden corporate asshole, because their messages can - and do - influence millions of people towards antisocial or, at very least, irrational thoughts and activities.

guelo 9y ago

Poisoning a conversation is a thing. And if you've participated in online discussions I don't see how you can honestly say it doesn't exist. You're implying that in every thread where a troll shows up to derail the conversation we all have to stop what we're doing and give thoughtful responses to the troll to show them the error of their ways. But then the only possible conversation is debates with trolls. But that gives too much power to the trolls. Sometimes you just have to shut the trolls up so you can talk about what you want to talk about.

derefr 9y ago
No, the parent was simply saying that “trolling” (or, having a bad opinion) doesn’t imply a character flaw, and that we shouldn’t use language that makes that implication, lest we start to think of people who have bad opinions as irredeemable. People can do wrong without being fundamentally bad, broken people. If we treated, say, driving a car the way people treat Internet discourse, you would be dragged out of your car and stoned to death the first time you cut someone off. Yes, sure, ignore posts that seem like trolling. Filter or block them, even. But perhaps you could give the people behind those posts a second chance, before writing them off for life for one post.
- crpatino 9y ago
  You know, nobody has been actually linched for either trolling or reckless driving. Maybe some were killed, if they crossed the wrong kind of victim, but that's the risk you assume when being a jerk. On the other hand, I would fully support a law that would give a temporary suspension on people's driving licenses if there was a reliable way to tell that they have an habit of cutting other drivers off. And to make it a permanent ban on operating any kind of vehicle if you were a reincident. Again, it would be greatly inconvenient for them, but there must be some point when the rights of the public superseed the rights of individual assholes.
jessaustin 9y ago
Implying dishonesty is toxic! Oh haha well done...
9y ago

toomanybeersies 9y ago

On that allegory though, the poison is in the dose. Small amounts of copper are required in your diet to keep your body functioning. However, large doses of copper are toxic. Same goes for most drugs.

crpatino 9y ago
Likewise, small amounts of trolling are benefical to online debate? Unless you imply this would be a reminder to everyone what happens when moderators get overly permisive, I do not see how that would be the case

nradov 9y ago

Totalitarian ideologies such as Communism, Fascism, and Islamic Fundamentalism are inherently, irretrievably toxic. They place the entire future of the human race at risk. I don't favor censoring them but we need to ceaselessly oppose them and shun their proponents.

tmuir 9y ago

I submit to you, a subreddit I've found in the past week that is absolutely horrifying, and I think stands quite counter to the "variety of opinions" model you put forth. This isn't anything visually graphic, but the opinions expressed in this subreddit make me believe that these people are preparing for a violent insurrection, full stop. https://www.reddit.com/r/CBTS_Stream/ https://www.reddit.com/r/CBTS_Stream/ CBTS stands for the Calm Before The Storm. These people follow an anonymous online poster named "Q" who posts vague, short posts on some other site (not sure where), and then lots of other subscribers repost these and form general conspiracy theories that all revolve around the deep state, the NWO, and other nefarious groups colluding to remove Donald Trump from office. Its not your standard fare related to the ongoing investigations in congress or the special counsel, these people are the dangerous combination of paranoid, gullible, and angry. As an outsider just perusing, its obvious that this place is crawling with charlatans and con artists who understand that they are addressing a crowd of people who are more prone to believe an idea simply because of the tantalizing ramifications of if it turned out to be true. Anyone can spout out the most hairbrained idea, and three people will show up to give vague, outrageous stories that confirm the original idea. I don't have an answer, but surely there must be a level of fomenting anger and general mob action that deserves some sort of modulation/regulation.

smsm42 9y ago
> the opinions expressed in this subreddit make me believe that these people are preparing for a violent insurrection, full stop. What makes you think so? I've looked at it (admittedly, didn't spend too much time) and it looks pretty standard fare for a subreddit - or any other forum like it. It's slogan is "BE LOUD. BE HEARD.". People that are preparing violent insurrection don't want to be loud and heard. They want to be silent and invisible until they have enough people and materiel overthrow the government. People that want to be participating in a democratic debate want to be heard. There's no point in being heard by the other guy if the next thing you're planning to do is shooting him (well, maybe if you demand surrender, but I see no such demands there and if would be weird to do it on Reddit). The only point I can see of being loud and heard if you try to convince somebody, or at least gather support - e.g. for winning al election, or pressuring an elected representative into doing something by showing them how many people demand it. All that is part of the normal democratic process. Even if people that are there hold some unacceptable views (I have no idea if they do, but even we for a minute assume they do) that doesn't mean they are planning violence. What is the evidence they do?

jamesrcole 9y ago

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.

Kalium 9y ago
I suspect the two are being conflated, and not entirely accidentally. In many social circles, going against someone's sacred cow is viewed as essentially no different from going well out of your way to be rude or argue in bad faith. This offers a signal advantage - it means it becomes acceptable to silence people who you disagree with on the basis that they're behaving badly.

Mozai 9y ago

I believe the metaphor of "poisonous chemical" has run away with you. Is it about the listener ingesting knowledge that is harmful ("grokking"), or is it about the speaker making a mistake and thus everything that speaker has done / will do is a mistake?

wfo 9y ago

Spoken like someone who hasn't spent much time on reddit recently. Since the massive surge in white nationalist, alt-right, and other right-hate ideologies online (and particularly the creation of the_donald, a subreddit which has shockingly avoided the ban hammer for an inexplicably long time given its obvious explicit purpose: to be an echo chamber to spread hate, scream slurs, threaten people with death and genocide, and dox enemies). In literally any part of reddit, if there is any post on anything that could be construed as racial or about any gender, even innocuous, hordes of extremist right wing trolls descend upon it and spew horrifying screeds of hate. They abuse people into silence. They are toxic. These things leak. And toxicity is real. Hate begets hate, saying nasty horrible things to people and advocating for genocide are not innocuous "beliefs that other people might have" they are unacceptable behavior in civil society. If you do this in real life you are ostracized, beaten, you lose your job, you are abandoned by your family and friends. And this is good. Social signals and actions to prevent "toxic" behavior have existed since forever. But the Internet is the property of a few companies who are loath to enforce those same social rules. Sometimes, they get pushed far enough they feel have to.

slayed0 9y ago
You're mixing beliefs with tactics/behavior. The behavior you described is "toxic" no matter what your beliefs are. I agree that the lack of repercussions and social feedback online lead to an increase in people acting like this and it is a problem for pretty much all public forums. However, it is neither constructive, nor is it truthful, in my opinion, to attach this behavior to a single group, side, or set of beliefs. All you'll end up doing is driving moderates of said group further to the extremes. You can call out ideas you think are bad and you can call out behavior you think is bad, but "other-ing" an entire group based on the worst actions at the fringes of their membership just isn't going to change any minds. It only widens the divide. Edit: The exception, of course, is if the behavior that is at issue is actually encouraged by a foundational belief of the group.
- wfo 9y ago
  >Edit: The exception, of course, is if the behavior that is at issue is actually encouraged by a foundational belief of the group. I'm glad you added this, I agree with you in general. I'm not interested in "other-ing" right-wing people, Republicans, moderates, conservatives, but I'm very interested in "other-ing", e.g. neo-nazis or Klan members. I am not worried about neo-nazis becoming more extreme (? is this possible?) and I also am not willing to let their sensibilities or concern for their feelings dictate any part of my or society's behavior.