Can't help but think the term "toxic," discredits the whole thing as a vehicle for something else. Aggression is natural and universal, but the tools for expressing and self-regulating it are not. One description of it that resonated personally for me was Robert Sapolsky's "depression is aggression turned inward," and while the phrase doesn't do the whole idea justice, it's more useful than hollow and seductive cliches like toxicity.

Arguably, aggression is necessarily an artifact of ideas of self and how we relate to others, and "venting" aggression safely lets you accept it (and yourself) in its totality and gives you a sense of how to manage it, instead of suppressing it and fearing that it will be exposed, only to have it come out in perverse other ways anyway. What bothers me about a lot of psychology is it seems mainly like a critical theory for deconstructing mental suffering as a means to relieve it theraputically - which is noble and useful, but it has been adopted as a scheme for moralizing coarse political interests.

Some years ago I turned a lot of my aggression outward and into disagreeableness, replacing a few intense relationships that enabled turning it inward with many new ones that did not, and it has made me more likeable, honest, trustworthy, reliable, fairer, and more sincerely compassionate, and as a result I have never been more content. It sets a healthy boundary where your natural aggression doesn't get triggered nearly as often, and you can manage it in other ways. Yes, some people will think you are an asshole, but the little bit of friction and occasional loss of a connection does not compare to relief and peace of just not caring what they think, and being free to engage people for only the enjoyment of it instead of some absurd sense of obligation. Or not.