Communication and language works on shared concepts and wording, which can be collected as a set of definitions. If we were to not do that, language and communication would not work very well, and with that there would be no foundation for sensible discourse. Or at least, that is what I have seen and experienced so far.
> If we were to not do that, language and communication would not work very well, and with that there would be no foundation for sensible discourse.
You're right, but we misunderstand each other and disagree all the time because language can be subjective.
Take your definition of toxicity: "abusive, unsupportive, or unhealthy emotionally towards others and in some forms themselves". All of those words are subjective.
Abusive is in the dictionary as "harsh or insulting". Harsh is defined as "excessively critical". Excessive means "going beyond the usual, necessary, or proper limit". Now define "usual". Language is a circular logic that at some point you just have to know for yourself what you mean.
When someone labels someone else as "toxic", they're using their own subjective interpretation of "normal", "harsh" and "abusive". And in these situations language doesn't work very well like you mention.
What can help is something less subjective like "I felt angry when you did X". It's more vulnerable and takes more responsibility, but it is less subjective than calling someone "toxic" and can't really be argued, which leads to better understanding and better discussions.
