[klodolph]

> What's toxic about this? Two perfectly sensible points of view and you think Mr. X is dangerous to be around?

Not sure where the word "dangerous" comes from.

Just to explain things. If you tell people at work that it's stupid to believe in god, you are probably going to get fired, and rightly so. It's not dangerous, but it is toxic (belittling people for their religious beliefs).

[bill_mon]

Toxic means dangerous.

[klodolph]

"Toxic" does not mean "dangerous" in this context. The lingustic phenomenon is called polysemy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polysemy

It's like how when I "execute" a program, you understand that I am not killing the program as punishment. Even though the word "execute" has that meaning, it only applies in other contexts.

[bill_mon]

Toxicity is a serious thing. We label toxic chemicals with labels and warnings because they're dangerous. Serious business.

When we apply "toxic" to a person or his behaviour, we borrow that seriousness. That's why we choose that specific, strong words with a well-known meaning.

I oppose calling "I disagree with your world view" toxic. A serial killer might deserve the term.

[klodolph]

> When we apply "toxic" to a person or his behaviour, we borrow that seriousness. That's why we choose that specific, strong words with a well-known meaning.

So, you knew what the meaning of "toxic" was all along, but you pretended to not know what the meaning was in order to make some kind of point? I would prefer a direct discussion.

> I oppose calling "I disagree with your world view" toxic. A serial killer might deserve the term.

Mr. X isn't toxic for his world view, it's his actions--his actions are to call people stupid over their religious beliefs.

Stallman isn't "toxic" for writing a couple essays or emails, but you could argue that he's toxic for the way he treated people over the past decades.

[bill_mon]

> So, you knew what the meaning of "toxic" was all along, but you pretended to not know what the meaning was in order to make some kind of point? I would prefer a direct discussion.

Yes, I knew all along that "toxic" means "dangerous". When we're not talking about eg. plutonium, we at least borrow the seriousness of that use. It's a very strong word.

> [...] his actions are to call people stupid over their religious beliefs.

I think it's a stretch to call speaking an action. Hitting religious people would be an action, calling them out really isn't.

Stallman is apparently not the most agreeable person, and possibly he's been nasty and hostile. Some people have chosen not to work with him, others have worked a lot with him. He's not killed anybody, he's not made of plutonium, there's no danger.

[Const-me]

Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right (source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human...), and if you're in US you have 1-st amendment there.

For this reason, verbally harassing people for their faith is IMO more toxic than "I disagree with you" or even "I disagree with you and I think you're stupid".

[tester34]

>When we apply "toxic" to a person or his behaviour, we borrow that seriousness.

what makes you think so?

words means in theirs contextes whatever people attributed to them, and I've never seen toxic used in other context than somebody trashtalking somebody and being called toxic, so definitely not dangerous.

[bill_mon]

> what makes you think so?

Because that's how language works. You don't call somebody a neanderthal to imply he has great hair.

[tester34]

>Because that's how language works.

Exactly, language changes dynamically

People years ago started using "toxic" to describe people who are negatively affecting them - e.g in games via trashtalk.