> 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

But the article does mention:

> they are pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction, and engaging in disingenuous arguments

and

> unreasonable, sanctimonious, biased, and self-aggrandizing

which does seen to have plenty overlap with the general definition and notion of someone who would exhibit toxic behaviour.

Ironically, it seems to be a term (SJW as well as 'toxic') that was invented (SJW) or re-applied (toxic) just to have one group of people label another group of people. Which is double-ironic because neither the labeling nor the behaviour validates ones own point or invalidates the other's point, yet doesn't further any conversation or discussion. It's practically just inflammatory filler.

(by the way, no, it didn't sound mean and I do like to review the popular labels and circular discussions from time to time -- much healthier for me than to be in the middle of it all the time)

Hey welcome to the culture war :D The trick is not to take it too seriously. Also South park is an amazing resource / commentary on it... :D

You're right, but we misunderstand each other and disagree all the time because language can be subjective.

Take your definition of toxicity: "abusive, unsupportive, or unhealthy emotionally towards others and in some forms themselves". All of those words are subjective.

Abusive is in the dictionary as "harsh or insulting". Harsh is defined as "excessively critical". Excessive means "going beyond the usual, necessary, or proper limit". Now define "usual". Language is a circular logic that at some point you just have to know for yourself what you mean.

When someone labels someone else as "toxic", they're using their own subjective interpretation of "normal", "harsh" and "abusive". And in these situations language doesn't work very well like you mention.

What can help is something less subjective like "I felt angry when you did X". It's more vulnerable and takes more responsibility, but it is less subjective than calling someone "toxic" and can't really be argued, which leads to better understanding and better discussions.

Sadly there are lots of reasonable-seeming right-leaning people whose discourse about 'real issues' sooner or later circles around to 'race realism' or 'the jewish question' or some other ideological Pandora's box. It's often later; a common rule of thumb among far-right extremists is that it takes at least 2 years to reliably indoctrinate a person online.

Here is an example of how these persuasion techniques are deployed, albeit a slightly offensive one. This particular example (spread across 3 pages) aims toward recruitment of people for the 'Qanon' conspiracy which is popular among some right-leaning people. While it's orthogonal to other far-right extremist movements, it is a useful example of a developing militant ideology.

https://centipedenation.com/library/red-pilling-a-general-gu...

I think an equally large problem is reasonable-seeming left-leaning people who hold some opinions so spectacularly absurd in the name of ideology that it generates very fertile ground for right wing commentary to resonate.

Some peoples actions are excused and excused and explained, others are not.

Regarding debate or YC or socialism: unless people get abusive I find it hard to believe that it would be called toxic. If you could link to it or provide an except of content that would be called 'toxic' without that content being 'abusive' that would be helpful.

When I complained about his moderation by saying this:

>A moderator just a hair left of your current moderation approach on the authoritarianism scale would "flag and remove" PG's entire recent article about income inequality with a note calling it "tedious ideological posturing."

For that comment, my entire six-year account was banned and I was told to email ycombinator to have it restored.

When I emailed to have my account restored, I was told this:

>We're happy to unban accounts when people give us reason to believe that they won't repeat the things that led us to ban them. In your case it's a little less clear what that reason might be, since you've expressed how much you dislike a bunch of things about HN, our moderation, and me. But if there's something we could do to help you have a change of heart about those things, let me know.

So basically, since I complained about his moderation, he took it personally, and only if I was willing to revoke my criticism of his moderation could I be unbanned..? I was never able to get clarification on what exactly needed to happen for me to get unbanned. The gist was, if you argue consistently in favor of free-market approaches to anything economic, you will be accused of "tedious idealogical flamebait" and eventually be banned.

Take it for what it's worth, but I was never what you would call toxic by any standard definition, and those were my results.

The reason why YC seems more left-leaning nowadays compared to a few years ago, is exactly what the grandparent of this thread suggested, anyone right-leaning (or libertarian) has been harassed off the site / strongly discouraged from sharing their perspectives.

Did you win?