I was talking about an off-site interaction, not a downvote on here.
If lsusr is well-calibrated in their judgment, I can only find out by hearing their operationalizing (careful reasoning (precision)), otherwise I can expect they make the same errors I typically see people making who rely heavily on judging things as toxic.
And it's a good cry for freedom. I focused on the one thing about this post I didn't like, but over all it's a good post in my opinion. I should have been more positive; I'll try to keep in mind my negativity bias in the future.
Why not? You want to let people start using words with very negative connotation to refer to whatever they want? In practice, that's how "toxic" is used; whatever people want it to mean, typically when the thing in question seems socially inconvenient for them.
Imagine you acted in accordance with your own logic and best judgment of probabilities in the way you normally do, in a way that you see as nuanced with respect to the moral culture you have lived through and continue to live through, and suddenly someone wants to paint it as "fascist" without understanding the basis at all. Do YOU think your behavior is fascist? Probably not. Words should not have such power without robust moral reasoning driving them, otherwise it is bound to bring dogmatic irrationality to situations that robust moral reasoning would have something to say about.
It is possible that OP has an unusually operationalized usage prepared for "toxic," but when I made my first comment on this post, I should bet against it.Related: The Anti-Jerk Law by Bryan Caplan
Setting out to define people as toxic and then cut them out of your life is the most toxic mentality you can have. Allowing buzzwords like "toxic" to control you without a fair operationalization is toxic. On average, the person who cuts people out of their life because they're considered toxic are really cutting people out of their life for making honest mistakes or reasonable disagreements; it's either disproportionate or highly conducive to epistemic injustice.
Scott and Abram? Who? Do they have any books I can read to familiarize myself with this discourse?
If I drop this ball, it will bounce back up to me. Is that 'if' in the territory? I feel like the potential to bounce when dropped is extrapolable from the physical properties of the ball. Like there's a mathematics of correct hypothetical situations to be discovered, which is part of the territory as much as e.g. Godel's theorem is.
This is exactly the kind of sensationalism that would have convinced me to embrace school. It says nothing of its character to have oily skin and a hollow skull devoid of moisture. I would be offended that the author tried to use such gimmicks on me.
In fact, if the author *really* wanted to make me think, they shouldn't even portray the enemy as shiny like Ra (https://srconstantin.wordpress.com/2016/10/20/ra/). They would portray the enemy as normal. Relatable, in fact; someone you could be best friends with. It is of the greatest importance to this person not to be annoying; not to "cause problems for the sake of causing problems" (i.e. to invite debate about why things are the way they are). This is extremely persuasive to most people; they don't want to be That Guy, whose badness is just to be taken for granted. Anyone with common sense understands. Be Skeet and not Jimmy.
There's no way a newb could know better. It's impossible that exposure and involvement could mislead a person.
It's not evil or toxic or mean to get angry; why would it be? It's a matter of how the anger is expressed and the context; it's not automatically evil/toxic/mean. If you use it wrong, it's mean. But anger is an appropriate response to bullying, at which point it's just kinda Angry Neutral/Good rather than Angry Evil. You can get angry and manage self-control simultaneously. You can have conflicted feelings of love and hate for a person while also caring for them completely. Anger is just anger.