The paradox of toxicity in online discourse

The paradox of toxicity in online discourse

Online hostility is no accident: it is the consequence of bringing the very hostility being denounced into the act of denouncing it. A recent exchange illustrates starkly how complaining about negativity becomes its own best propaganda.

In a public discussion, one participant lashes out at the forum's atmosphere, calling others "suicidal, bitter and fat" and using ethnic slurs. In the same paragraph, he accuses the others of blocking debate with insults. The contradiction does not go unnoticed: another participant points out that reproducing exactly what you criticize is the recipe for never escaping the vicious circle. The most lucid response comes from someone offering a way out: if the environment worsens your mood, the sensible thing is to leave it, but carrying the same hostility somewhere else solves nothing.

The episode reflects a recurring pattern in Spanish public conversation: polarization feeds on itself. The relevant point is not quantitative but qualitative: the inability to distinguish between denouncing a problem and perpetrating it. As long as the complaint is voiced with the same weapons being attacked, switching forums —or social networks— will only be a change of scenery, not of script.

The predictability of the cycle suggests that unless there is a conscious pause —one point per message, evidence instead of insults—, the atmosphere will stay the same. The remedy is boringly simple: answer the strongest argument and mute whoever only hurls abuse. But applying it requires exactly what is missing: the will not to be part of the problem.