This might sound mean because it is text, but it isn't, it's just answering your question. But the word (actually term) you're looking for is social justice warrior.

I can't find a good definition from credible sources but WikiPedia and the cited references (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice_warrior) refer to it as a pejorative term for an individual who promotes socially progressive views, not

> 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)

>>In reply to child post by oneplane

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

If you have so little skin in the game that you can maintain that attitude, you should probably stay out of the discussion.

The world does not operate on definitions.

Communication and language works on shared concepts and wording, which can be collected as a set of definitions. If we were to not do that, language and communication would not work very well, and with that there would be no foundation for sensible discourse. Or at least, that is what I have seen and experienced so far.

> If we were to not do that, language and communication would not work very well, and with that there would be no foundation for sensible discourse.

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.

Adding personal context in subjective writing does indeed help instead of assuming one's local interpretation is the same as the reader's.