Define "toxicity"

[Temp name]

I'd say toxic is when you're a dick for no reason. And no "because I felt like it" isn't a reason.

Basically yes, in general that is a leftist value to think that a hierarchical institution like that should be more egalitarian rather than stoic and rugged. However if there is a specific instance where a military officer/leader is doing something toxic that doesn't enhance soldier morale and combat effectiveness then that error should be corrected at the level of the individual and not at the level of systems.

If you think a hierarchical system is itself the primary cause of people's problems inside the system then you should simply identify as a leftist if that's truly what you believe. Otherwise it makes more sense to stick to *individualism* where you blame the toxic person as an individual instead of blaming the larger systems and groups associated with the toxic person.

Every institution like the military can become more rational and ethical over time but the claim that our current systems are somehow fundamentally broke at the level of the system is a claim that is not corroborated by evidence, data, and reality.

People aren't saying that having a boss or someone above them is toxic, but that the people in those positions themselves are toxic.

It's not the position, but the people in the position. You're the only one trying to say it's the system's fault

- - - Updated - - -

So you guys are insisting that "don't be an asshole" is a political thing?

Like 1 or 2 people are trying to claim that

[Shadowferal]

Makes sense. Their entire political platform is based around being an asshole... so it's inherently political when someone says "stop doing that".

Just "someone" bitching because everyone despises libertarians for having rotten ideals.

[PC2]

People aren't saying that having a boss or someone above them is toxic, but that the people in those positions themselves are toxic.

It's not the position, but the people in the position. You're the only one trying to say it's the system's fault

Right so if there is an immoral boss then you have to illustrate that to their boss or find a new boss with a morality that matches your own. You can't reasonably point to a minority of bad apples and then say "TEH WHOLE SYSTEM IS TURRIBLE AND ROTTEN!".

I can't speak for other people but anecdotally speaking I'd say 7 out of 10 of those complaints can be reduced down to jealousy and envy in regards to being subordinate to one's boss. However I certainly do believe that there is a significant minority of such complaints that are valid.

[Calfredd]

I can't speak for other people but anecdotally speaking I'd say 7 out of 10 of those complaints can be reduced down to jealousy and envy in regards to being subordinate to one's boss. However I certainly do believe that there is a significant minority of such complaints that are valid.

And since no one made the claim that "All bosses are awful" your anecdote is worthless to the discussion.

[Templar 331]

Right so if there is an immoral boss then you have to illustrate that to their boss or find a new boss with a morality that matches your own. You can't reasonably point to a minority of bad apples and then say "TEH WHOLE SYSTEM IS TURRIBLE AND ROTTEN!".

I can't speak for other people but anecdotally speaking I'd say 7 out of 10 of those complaints can be reduced down to jealousy and envy in regards to being subordinate to one's boss. However I certainly do believe that there is a significant minority of such complaints that are valid.

After being fired from one of those 3 companies this year it's hard for me not to believe the whole system is rigged to reward "toxic" behavior on the part of management. The one's who are willing to make their subordinates break the rules for the short term benefits seem to be protected by the one above them. The system is rigged so the company always comes out on top, even at the expense of the workers.

When a supervisor, a manager, and a corporate representative all tell you to do something then fire you for doing it that is "toxicity."

[Shadowferal]

And since no one made the claim that "All bosses are awful" your anecdote is worthless to the discussion.

I give it 2 stars (out of 5) for the typical attempt at shifting the argument.

[Orange Joe]

And since no one made the claim that "All bosses are awful" your anecdote is worthless to the discussion.

Stop being toxic by using logic on him. Just accept his ideas and find solutions to problems.

[Endus]

Right so if there is an immoral boss then you have to illustrate that to their boss or find a new boss with a morality that matches your own. You can't reasonably point to a minority of bad apples and then say "TEH WHOLE SYSTEM IS TURRIBLE AND ROTTEN!".

I can't speak for other people but anecdotally speaking I'd say 7 out of 10 of those complaints can be reduced down to jealousy and envy in regards to being subordinate to one's boss. However I certainly do believe that there is a significant minority of such complaints that are valid.

Attitudes by an employer that are pretty directly and irrevocably toxic for employees to deal with;

1> Wage theft. This is the biggest form of theft in the country. By a ridiculous margin. Not paying overtime rates, paying salaried employees and then working them more than 40 hours a week on average without additional proportional pay, extending hours without notice, etc. Sure, not every employer, but it's massive, so it goes here.

2> No paid sick leave. This pushes employees to show up, even when suffering with an illness. This doesn't just impact the sick staff member, but everyone they might infect, if infectious.

3> No paid vacation. Just unpleasant and vindictive.

4> Performance monitoring. Directly displays how little the employer values or trusts the employee. This covers anything internal, any kind of screen monitoring, all of it.

5> Any of the mantras that echo sentiments like "always give 100%" or the like. These are inhumane and impossible, and only lead to employees blaming themselves for any performance level but their absolute best.

6> Differing/non-standardized pay levels. Pay should be standardized and follow an organized plan. Employees should know when to expect their next raise and how much it will be. Otherwise, you're creating uncertainty and confusion. This goes double if you're telling them not to talk about their pay with each other, which in most places is illegal.

7> Literally any effort or opposition to worker collectivization in any form whatsoever. Period.

8> Similar to 6, lack of clear and established promotion pathways, both in terms of qualifications required and who's got seniority if there's any waiting line.

9> Wild pay differentials between staff and executives. Makes it clear how little you value the staff. 20x your least-paid employee would be a "wild pay differential", by way of example. And this covers total compensation, including benefits and stock and bonuses and all that; total compensation in all forms.

10> Lack of top-down respect. If you're ever treated as lesser, if you're ever told you're "lucky to have a job", anything like that is abusive dickery.

There, 10 clear examples of toxic workplace conducts, and I'd venture you'd find at least 3-4 in most major companies in the USA, if not way more. And not a one of those is rooted in "jealousy" or "envy", which is just bullshit that falls right under #10, honestly.

[Gestopft]

2> No paid sick leave. This pushes employees to show up, even when suffering with an illness. This doesn't just impact the sick staff member, but everyone they might infect, if infectious.

As someone that has worked in restaurants...very much this. EVERYbody shows up sick if they can physically handle it. And management would usually much rather you show up contagious than go through the ordeal of finding someone to take your shift or running short staffed. I got a 'talking to' by a manager because I had four sick calls in six weeks- two were when I had such a bad pulmonary condition I required steroids to breathe properly, and two were when I got food poisoning (from eating a meal after a shift, no less). And in restaurants, you're not just working with the public, you're making things for the public to put into their mouths. And working while sick is rampant, for SOOOO many reasons.

5> Any of the mantras that echo sentiments like "always give 100%" or the like. These are inhumane and impossible, and only lead to employees blaming themselves for any performance level but their absolute best.

The convenient thing about defending capitalism is that you can explain away the inherent flaws by blaming individuals for not working hard enough.

[Raeph]

Of course, I mean toxicity in reference to human interaction, not the Merriam-Webster definition. Think deeper than that, if you will!

What constitutes a toxic personality? How does someone, especially in pop culture and on the internet, become considered toxic? Curious about you guys' thoughts, provided they're well articulated.

I would say that "toxic" especially in social media/internet communication is a situation in which the participants don't allow their opponents to have a rational basis for their opinion and then assume that the worst motives of their opponent for the opinion that they disagree with.

You see it under many different subjects but Godwin's Law, Baby Killing or Genocide is very quickly hit on as a motive for the other side, regardless of camp involved on either side.

That is toxic.

You may disagree with people but if you aren't ready to give them the time to explain their position then how will you even be able to respond to that position? You can't and so you have a break down of communication where no value is given to anyone's opinion because the default understanding is that each side's position is evil to the other side. Not different but evil.

Keep in mind though that this means that you will have to accept that you will hear "offensive" opinions at times but I don't personally consider "offensive" things to be worthy of sanction. You are free to be as vile as you want, but I want to know what you think so that if I can't personally tolerate what your opinion is, and through communication I can't change your mind, then I will just stop listening to you, but you will still be free to be as "offensive" as you want to be.

[Mihalik]

Of course, I mean toxicity in reference to human interaction, not the Merriam-Webster definition. Think deeper than that, if you will!

What constitutes a toxic personality? How does someone, especially in pop culture and on the internet, become considered toxic? Curious about you guys' thoughts, provided they're well articulated.

I think the Merriam Webster definition works just fine. But I guess even a dictionary definition is TLDR for you.

What is a toxic person?
In addition to its original meaning concerning debilitating or lethal poisons, toxic has some figurative senses. Toxic can mean "extremely harsh, malicious, or harmful," which is often the intention when describing an individual as "toxic."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict...highly%20toxic.

Scroll down a tad.

[Slant]

Of course, I mean toxicity in reference to human interaction, not the Merriam-Webster definition. Think deeper than that, if you will!

What constitutes a toxic personality? How does someone, especially in pop culture and on the internet, become considered toxic? Curious about you guys' thoughts, provided they're well articulated.

Anything you don't like, that's the American definition.

[Sagenod]

I would say that "toxic" especially in social media/internet communication is a situation in which the participants don't allow their opponents to have a rational basis for their opinion and then assume that the worst motives of their opponent for the opinion that they disagree with.

You see it under many different subjects but Godwin's Law, Baby Killing or Genocide is very quickly hit on as a motive for the other side, regardless of camp involved on either side.

That is toxic.

You may disagree with people but if you aren't ready to give them the time to explain their position then how will you even be able to respond to that position? You can't and so you have a break down of communication where no value is given to anyone's opinion because the default understanding is that each side's position is evil to the other side. Not different but evil.

Keep in mind though that this means that you will have to accept that you will hear "offensive" opinions at times but I don't personally consider "offensive" things to be worthy of sanction. You are free to be as vile as you want, but I want to know what you think so that if I can't personally tolerate what your opinion is, and through communication I can't change your mind, then I will just stop listening to you, but you will still be free to be as "offensive" as you want to be.

Couldn't agree more. The breakdown of communication prevents proper discourse between representatives of opposing ideals, which I see as anathema to true social progress. It seems as though nowadays the groups that want to affect social change tend to put the cart before the horse, believing their stance is inherently just and thus everyone should just follow along. But that's now how it works because people's minds don't change overnight. It takes time and effort, with a whole lot of debate. Our best intentions should always be to continue that debate, and maintain the sophisticated and productive "tug of war" between right and left that allows us to enact true progress as a society.

[Mihalik]

Couldn't agree more. The breakdown of communication prevents proper discourse between representatives of opposing ideals, which I see as anathema to true social progress. It seems as though nowadays the groups that want to affect social change tend to put the cart before the horse, believing their stance is inherently just and thus everyone should just follow along. But that's now how it works because people's minds don't change overnight. It takes time and effort, with a whole lot of debate. Our best intentions should always be to continue that debate, and maintain the sophisticated and productive "tug of war" between right and left that allows us to enact true progress as a society.

That's a whole lot of horseshit for saying- I don't like being called out for holding utterly reprehensible positions concerning social issues.



...and...

When I engage in racist, sexist, homophobic etc discourse, I'm not actually being a racist, sexist, homophobe, I'm just being an intellectual, don't cancel me bro.

Again. The dictionary definition works perfectly fine. Stop trying to redefine things to fit into your alternative facts nonsense.

Not all forms of discourse have value, are productive or make any contribution to society.

Liberal democracies are very vulnerable to anti-democratic, anti-social and deeply regressive movements using the mechanisms of free speech and freedom of association to erode democracy and personal freedom. That's why recognizing such things, labeling them and rejecting them is so important.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

I disagree, that is a leftist rallying cry because the left is about focusing their hatred on hierarchy and power dynamics. From my perspective it just seems like you're recapitulating the left's talking points and agenda.

What am I even reading. Are you just a right wing bot or something spitting out buzz words?

- - - Updated - - -

Its almost impossible to reliably define, because it depends on the narrator, much like "respect." Respect is different from person to person.

[Endus]

Its almost impossible to reliably define, because it depends on the narrator, much like "respect." Respect is different from person to person.

More specifically, it's contextual. Something that would be "toxic" in one circumstance is not necessarily toxic in every circumstance. For instance, grabbing your wife's butt as you walk past her wouldn't be "toxic". Grabbing a colleague's ass would.

[Mihalik]

More specifically, it's contextual. Something that would be "toxic" in one circumstance is not necessarily toxic in every circumstance. For instance, grabbing your wife's butt as you walk past her wouldn't be "toxic". Grabbing a colleague's ass would.

The dictionary definition fits.

Extremely harsh, malicious or harmful behavior.

Sexism or more specifically in your example sexual abuse is harmful behavior.

It's really not rocket science. So when there's pearl clutching about sexist, racist, homophobic or otherwise harmful speech or behaviour being called toxic, there's no need to over think it.

If it walks like a duck...

[caractacus]

The dictionary definition fits.

Extremely harsh, malicious or harmful behavior.

Sexism or more specifically in your example sexual abuse is harmful behavior.

It's really not rocket science. So when there's pearl clutching about sexist, racist, homophobic or otherwise harmful speech or behaviour being called toxic, there's no need to over think it.

If it walks like a duck...

I see you conveniently drop the use of the word "extremely"

All those things you mentioned can be contextual, subjective, unintentional and cause varying degrees of harm.

A film maker might include racist or homophobic behaviour to make their film more hard hitting, it's not toxicity it's dramatic license.

A man might hold a door open for a women who finds it sexist, it's not toxic it's just a misunderstanding.

[Mihalik]

I see you conveniently drop the use of the word "extremely"

All those things you mentioned can be contextual, subjective, unintentional and cause varying degrees of harm.

A film maker might include racist or homophobic behaviour to make their film more hard hitting, it's not toxicity it's dramatic license.

A man might hold a door open for a women who finds it sexist, it's not toxic it's just a misunderstanding.

I see you conveniently can't read.

You conveniently missed the malice and harm bits.

Homophobia and Sexism are objectively harmful when malicious.

This is no subjective here.

[Sagenod]

That's a whole lot of horseshit for saying- I don't like being called out for holding utterly reprehensible positions concerning social issues.



...and...

When I engage in racist, sexist, homophobic etc discourse, I'm not actually being a racist, sexist, homophobe, I'm just being an intellectual, don't cancel me bro.

Again. The dictionary definition works perfectly fine. Stop trying to redefine things to fit into your alternative facts nonsense.

Not all forms of discourse have value, are productive or make any contribution to society.

Liberal democracies are very vulnerable to anti-democratic, anti-social and deeply regressive movements using the mechanisms of free speech and freedom of association to erode democracy and personal freedom. That's why recognizing such things, labeling them and rejecting them is so important.

False! Thank you for your thoughtfulness, but don't try to tell me what my words mean.