4 ms·

"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

"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

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)