I didn't say anything about toxicity, I don't know what that is and haven't found a clear definition. Hatred is a completely appropriate reaction to the percieved stupidity of others, its a human emotion like any other it can be expressed as vulgarities, capslock etc. but the expression isn't the problem here. You can clearly define vulgarity, or other types of unwanted behavior but this isn't enough for the self appointed tone police. We are not anything 'as a society', we are not a society, we are not even remotely in the same culture. We as different peoples that have to interact and if you make criteria based on the arbitray standards of civility based on your culture this is terrible for a number of different reasons.

I totaly don't agree with this statement: "Hatred is a completely appropriate reaction to the percieved stupidity of others".

Especially "percieved stupidity", if someone thinks he is smart, he should be smart enough to stop and think that maybe other person is right or try to understand why such person might think differently.

I understand mostly it is lack of time, I don't have time to understand point of view of each and every person on the internet, but still hatred is not a valid response until there is a really good reason.

Self appointed tone police have nothing to do with it - it is that as in the Twitter thread - normal people will withdraw from the discussion and person who is discussing with hatred will talk only with people like himself or will be left alone. Which leads to less people participating in discussion which leads to fruitless dung throwing.

So I see that there is no "self appointed tone police" it is just that people stop contributing when they face 'hatred' which leads to conclusion that - yes we are society and this is how it works.

You have trouble understanding what I'm writing. Hate is just an emotion, you can't ban an emotion you can ban some bad expressions of an emotion (threats of violence for example) but to try and make one of the basic human emotions illegal online is idiotic.

I see you don't understand what I am writing as well.

I don't write anything about banning or making emotions illegal.

It is just that I can't see how someone can get angry about something someone wrote somewhere on the internet.

Other thing I am writing about is that expressing anger or negative emotions online is not productive and is scaring away people who could contribute to the discussion.

My OP about demonizing hatred is about baning 'toxicity', 'hate' etc. that serves only as a rationalization of violence or exclusion. There is no rule we have to be productive all the time, but hatred can be a great motivator, there are books, games and music that grew out of some very intense hatred.

>It is just that I can't see how someone can get angry about something someone wrote somewhere on the internet.

Can you see how someone gets angry about something off the internet? It's exactly the same except some non-verbal actions are not possible for expressing that anger.