Hacker News Reader

So if there's a post by a climate change denier and I reply "this is wrong because of A, B and C", then this qualifies as toxic now? Awesome.

View on HN

Why would that qualify as toxic by their definition? That's not rude, disrespectful, or unreasonable.

But more likely too let the person leave the discussion.

There are definitely things said that can cause me to leave a discussion, even if said in a civil manner. I am not going to stick around to debate a person who believes the earth is flat, no matter how polite.

I interpret "rude, disrespectful, or unreasonable comment that is likely to make you leave a discussion" as (rude OR disrespectful OR unreasonable) AND likely to make you leave a discussion. So making you want to leave a discussion is necessary but not sufficient.

The point is, that's three categories that are very subjective.

Yeah, it is very subjective. Of course, have you ever found an objective definition for any value judgement of text?

The more the better. But think of the incentives this vague "definition" creates. By labelling your opponents "toxic" (claiming that their rude etc. stuff is making you want to leave), you can get them censored. It is rewarding thin-skinnedness with power. This does not end well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com