People aren't philosophically opposed to peace and harmony; but some other people test their limits (sometimes intentionally)
THE word "toxic" isn't new. Literally -- or rather in the literal sense -- it refers to something poisonous, which can be lethal. Like a particular political activist in Russia, who found himself hospitalised in Germany after entering a coma (and he wasn't the first).
"A couple of years ago I criticised a person for spreading lies, a person called Catalin. Some 'witty' person then accused me of veiled sexism, only to then realise that Catalin is in fact a guy."Terms such as "toxic" have found new (as in newspeak) meanings in online communities; those may often refer to people who question corporate sponsors for their true motivations/ulterior motives.
Mannerism is sometimes the vector through which people introduce the label and stick/pin it onto people. A couple of years ago I criticised a person for spreading lies, a person called Catalin. Some 'witty' person then accused me of veiled sexism, only to then realise that Catalin is in fact a guy. It was rather revealing an incident. For calling out FUD and lies I was publicly vilified, based on the false perception that Catalin was not male (actually Catalin is male and still produces a torrent of anti-Linux FUD at ZDNet -- for a salary).
The "toxic" label can be a nuisance. It's supposed to make it harder for one to find/keep a job or enter/remain in communities. Yesterday some person from Google, who had long trolled Linus Torvalds, tried to somehow associate me with rape. It was a slanderous cheap shot, but then again the same tactics were previously used against Linus Torvalds and his close colleagues. They weaponise women's rights to paint people they disagree with (or who harm their financial interests) as chauvinistic "trolls" who lack manners. Who's more toxic? The people who enter communities to vilify/oust their founders? Or the founders themselves? It beggars belief.
"Who's more toxic? The people who enter communities to vilify/oust their founders? Or the founders themselves? It beggars belief."Being defensive or protective of one's community/goals isn't "rude" or "toxic". Standing up for what one believes to be true and just (yes, justice matters the most) isn't "trolling".
Sometimes in life we need to recognise there's this grotesque inversion of narratives and we know who has the money (and media connections/ownership) to reinforce such inversions. When the Linux Foundation suggests Microsoft is now 'open' and 'green' it's time to check one's cheques and balances. When a Google employee publicly insinuates that I somehow condone rape he achieves nothing at all (except making me angry at Google). ⬆
“The true hypocrite is the one who ceases to perceive his deception, the one who lies with sincerity.”
--Andre Gide