Generally I'm not a snob about language, linguistics, speech, etc; especially when my pattern of writing itself isn't all that great, I may mispronounce things, and my sentence structure probably makes an English teacher's skin crawl. But one trend that needs to die entirely is the utter retardation of language by using the mindless catch-all word that's become so thoroughly meaningless: "toxic".
We have such an overwhelmingly extensive language that borrows vocabulary (and sometimes even pronunciations) from a variety of languages, with words that often have very weirdly narrow case-specific meanings, to give people a variety of ways to convey their thoughts on something.
But in this modern age, some of the online discourse is so reductive and thoughtless, that people want to say "thing bad!" but not excite any brain activity to substantiate why "thing bad!".
I also can't comprehend how people just take "toxic" at face value, to fully characterize something, and not actually bother to inquire why someone says something is "toxic", as their definition or standards could differ widely, and said person could just be stirring up substanceless bullshit to keep a person from someone or something they just simply preferentially don't like.
Instead, speak more specifically in other the words the English language provides, such as:
Or you can do a search engine query: "negative adjectives". I've found plenty of suggestions for the list above from said results (not to say you need to pull out a thesaurus every time you say anything negative, but just to get an idea of more meaningful and specific words that can be used instead).
Using one or more of those words is an upgrade over just blanketing anything as "toxic", but there's still room to explain why you'd use those words to describe said thing:
Generally any time someone broadly generalizes something/someone as "toxic", I'll just mentally discard the sentiment right away unless they can bother to actually detail why and what they mean. Sometimes the word is honestly just used for nothing more than the lowest-efforted way that people try to 'crowd control' people away from communities/people purely just because: said community challenged/hurt their ego, actually bothered to debate/dispute them on some claims (e.g. they walk in professing their political beliefs as indisputable doctrine, and get upset when people challenge it), or had been too blunt or direct than what they'd prefer.
I might get all "huff and puff" at first if people don't see the world the same as I do, even if I try to lay it out as clearly and obvious as possible, but I will still later appreciate people challenging me on an argument or debate point, as not everyone sees everything the same, and it's irrational to just expect people to see the world exactly the same as I do. Meanwhile others in the same situation might just blindly characterize it as being "toxic" because they can't handle conflict or debate at all, and just want to keep people away from forums that can readily point out flaws in their argument or beliefs, or that simply just don't hold the exact same beliefs they have.
Another dynamic is someone new to a community might come in and instantly act like a backseat moderator, expecting moderators and admins to cater to their every whim of how a community should be ran, as if the world revolves around them, and be surprised if they face any friction in response. If said community doesn't adhere to their strict doctrine, then it's rubberstamped "absolutely toxic, DNI", scorn of the internet, et al. These kinds of people can also be unreliable narrators with ulterior motives, concocting whatever story necessary to fit their narrative—to crowd control people away from communities that they can't backseat moderate.