I believe the point Estebonrober is getting at is that things that are deemed "toxic" aren't always actually toxic - they arise from longstanding disagreements turned uncivil. Anger can be righteous, instead of just being plain wrong. But this is thrown under "toxic" more often than not. People will also use "toxic" when they actually mean "attitudes I personally disagree with" (I don't think Este is doing this, but it 100% happens when people want to shut down arguments, all over the Internet). The job of moderation (getting a bit meta here) is to work out where the line is in any given topic. Users are human beings, nobody is a purely-rational robot, and we all step over lines in good or bad faith.
It's easy to say "the only sensible reaction is to disengage", but if that gives others free reign over a topic, it isn't actually always the best course of action if the communal space in question is of value and worth preserving.
