4 ms·

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 mo

by 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.
  - white-flame 9y ago
    I think what this boils down to, and is extremely apparent in those quotes, is communication skills & style. People with very controversial beliefs (and in a free & diverse society, everything is controversial in some relative axis, hence we need to extend measures of freedom to each other) can still act civilly, or they can flail and be problematic on forums. That's not a feature of their beliefs, but a feature of their behavior (stubbornness, arrogance, etc). People who have fully "correct thinking" in some scope can also be disruptive, poorly behaved members of discussion-based communities.

by mwfunk 9y ago

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.
- white-flame 9y ago
  I think what this boils down to, and is extremely apparent in those quotes, is communication skills & style. People with very controversial beliefs (and in a free & diverse society, everything is controversial in some relative axis, hence we need to extend measures of freedom to each other) can still act civilly, or they can flail and be problematic on forums. That's not a feature of their beliefs, but a feature of their behavior (stubbornness, arrogance, etc). People who have fully "correct thinking" in some scope can also be disruptive, poorly behaved members of discussion-based communities.