3 ms·

Polarisation and 'toxicity' are two completely different things. The fact that people have increasingly divergent views (or rather, are voicing them, they prob

Polarisation and 'toxicity' are two completely different things. The fact that people have increasingly divergent views (or rather, are voicing them, they probably always held those views) is just a fact of life. It's not unique to any online community or even any country. It might be simply the fact that too much diversity is inherently destined to collapse. 'Toxicity' is a made-up new meaning for the word, which means anything undesirable from the point of view of the speaker. Labelling the former as the later is one of the root causes of the feedback loop you're describing. The first step is for both sides of polarising issues to acknowledge each other, that both think they're doing the right thing, and that neither is 'toxic'. Without that common ground, dialogue can never begin.

mthoms 7y ago
>'Toxicity' [...] means anything undesirable from the point of view of the speaker. I think it's more often the delivery than the message that gets something labeled as "toxic". Merriam Webster describes toxic (when used in this context) as "extremely harsh, malicious, or harmful" People are generally open to new ideas as long as they're presented in a friendly and factual manner.
- missosoup 7y ago
  "Extremely harsh" is entirely different from "malicious or harmful". Again the conflation of these is one of the root causes of what we're seeing today. People who use the term 'toxic' like this are people who subscribe to the mindset of "I'm being prosecuted because someone is saying something I don't like". People seem to have forgotten that having free speech necessarily means tolerating speech you disagree with, speech you find objectionable etc. Blanket labelling anything outside one's bubble as 'toxic' and refusing to engage in any dialogue is exactly how polarisation begins.
  - mthoms 7y ago
    I literally just explained to you, in a courteous and civilized manner, that many (in my opinion - most) people don't use the term that way. That includes me. The irony of you ignoring my comment/experience, doubling down on your claim, and then going on to preach that "refusing to engage in any dialogue is exactly how polarisation begins" would be hilarious if it weren't so depressing. People seem to have lost the ability to listen. That makes me sad. Edit: Grammar.
    - missosoup 7y ago
      It sounds a bit like you might be feeling prosecuted because I said something you disagree with. I'm not even sure what part of my comment upset you since none of it is harmful, malicious, or personally targeted. Emotive language like 'preach' has no place in constructive debate. I'm not at all upset about your viewpoint, I'm happy to debate it on any level you'd like. Keep your comment as a solid example of what I meant for the other readers.
      - mthoms 7y ago
        Again, ignoring the substance of my message in order to continue your attack. >I'm not at all upset about your viewpoint, I'm happy to debate it on any level you'd like. I told you exactly how I see something, you've yet to acknowledge it, and have twice doubled down and claimed I think the opposite. This is the problem. You aren't interested in listening, you're more interested in being "right". I'm done here. "...refusing to engage in any dialogue is exactly how polarisation begins" -missosoup (while un-ironically refusing to engage in dialogue)

mthoms 7y ago

>'Toxicity' [...] means anything undesirable from the point of view of the speaker. I think it's more often the delivery than the message that gets something labeled as "toxic". Merriam Webster describes toxic (when used in this context) as "extremely harsh, malicious, or harmful" People are generally open to new ideas as long as they're presented in a friendly and factual manner.

missosoup 7y ago
"Extremely harsh" is entirely different from "malicious or harmful". Again the conflation of these is one of the root causes of what we're seeing today. People who use the term 'toxic' like this are people who subscribe to the mindset of "I'm being prosecuted because someone is saying something I don't like". People seem to have forgotten that having free speech necessarily means tolerating speech you disagree with, speech you find objectionable etc. Blanket labelling anything outside one's bubble as 'toxic' and refusing to engage in any dialogue is exactly how polarisation begins.
- mthoms 7y ago
  I literally just explained to you, in a courteous and civilized manner, that many (in my opinion - most) people don't use the term that way. That includes me. The irony of you ignoring my comment/experience, doubling down on your claim, and then going on to preach that "refusing to engage in any dialogue is exactly how polarisation begins" would be hilarious if it weren't so depressing. People seem to have lost the ability to listen. That makes me sad. Edit: Grammar.
  - missosoup 7y ago
    It sounds a bit like you might be feeling prosecuted because I said something you disagree with. I'm not even sure what part of my comment upset you since none of it is harmful, malicious, or personally targeted. Emotive language like 'preach' has no place in constructive debate. I'm not at all upset about your viewpoint, I'm happy to debate it on any level you'd like. Keep your comment as a solid example of what I meant for the other readers.
    - mthoms 7y ago
      Again, ignoring the substance of my message in order to continue your attack. >I'm not at all upset about your viewpoint, I'm happy to debate it on any level you'd like. I told you exactly how I see something, you've yet to acknowledge it, and have twice doubled down and claimed I think the opposite. This is the problem. You aren't interested in listening, you're more interested in being "right". I'm done here. "...refusing to engage in any dialogue is exactly how polarisation begins" -missosoup (while un-ironically refusing to engage in dialogue)