[tablespoon]

> How's "protecting your colleagues from a toxic space is a recipe for more toxicity"? And there should be no "trying" there. I fail to see a line that you drawn.

You almost certainly don't have the power to "protect your colleagues from a toxic workplace," especially by the mere act of not quitting. So all you can do is try and fail.

If you leave, you have a better chances of actually making things better for yourself, and that may cause the dominoes to fall and get others do the same.

[thesz]

Protection is not an absolute term. My (in)action can be more or less protective, more or less helpful.

Others can be quite not ready to do the same as I do or plan to do. By helping them to do what they can do best, I am too doing my best.

And I am not even talking about definition of toxicity in work place. What one can see as a dream work place, others can see as a toxic wasteland.

[tablespoon]

> By helping them to do what they can do best, I am too doing my best.

You need to keep in mind the bigger picture: you all work for the owners, not for each other, and the owners have no loyalty to you. Blurring that fact is an excellent way to be manipulated, because you can be deceived into being loyal to something that does not deserve it.

And frankly the kind of thinking you seem to be advocating has no barrier preventing it from justifying the absurd. Why not volunteer to take a pay cut, to help your colleagues from feeling the heat by allowing the team to have a larger headcount with its budget?

[thesz]

I see completely contrarian picture about manipulation: you try to manipulate me and others (who read us) that abrupt quitting is the only way to go and that thinking about how to lessen harm to my colleagues is amoral as it is further goals of the owner of the company.

You equate company to the owner, I think that company is also other people.

[tablespoon]

> You equate company to the owner, I think that company is also other people.

Volunteer for a pay cut to help your coworkers, then.