Science proves what your gut already knows about keeping toxic people around

I once thought that the worst thing you could do in a relationship was to let politics ruin it. I was wrong. The worst thing you can do is maintain a relationship with someone who shows you who they really are—and then pretend that person doesn’t exist.

A few weeks ago, I introduced a philosophical position about taxation into a group chat, announcing that I had rescinded my once strongly held belief that “taxation is theft.”

Instead, I called it what it is: “extortion.”

Well, the chat had become a comfortable echo chamber for political consensus. I was almost always apart from such consensus.

My statement represented a fundamental challenge to the group’s apparent agreement that taxation, while imperfect, serves legitimate social functions.

I figured what I had to say could at least provoke discussion. I didn’t know it would expose the true character of some people I thought I knew.

One man—I’ll call him Kingsley—scolded me immediately with all the typical left-wing talking points. No discussion. No debate. No attempt to understand or engage with the underlying philosophical questions about the nature of government authority and individual rights.

Just the digital equivalent of slamming a door. He must have thought about it a little bit, because within hours he removed me from the group chat altogether. In that moment, I realized I had been gifted something precious: clarity about Kingsley himself.

Kingsley isn’t bad, not in the traditional sense. In most cases, I genuinely liked him, and I thought I got along with him relatively fine.

Furthermore, he’s not immoral—someone who knows right from wrong but chooses wrong anyway. Yet, he may be something that’s more dangerous: he’s largely amoral.

Amoral people lack moral principles altogether. They operate outside the bounds of moral judgment, indifferent to right and wrong because they have no framework for distinguishing between them.

Feelings and emotions reign supreme.

And here’s what made Kingsley’s reaction so revealing—he possesses all the markers of toxic behavior while simultaneously claiming moral superiority.

Recent research reveals a disturbing truth about online political discourse: it’s not toxic because political topics are inherently inflammatory. It’s toxic because toxic people are more likely to participate in political conversations.

Northwestern University researchers analyzed 260 million Reddit comments and found that individuals who make toxic comments in political contexts also make toxic comments everywhere else.

The toxicity stems from the people, not the politics.

Kingsley embodies this pattern perfectly. He’s dismissive of alternative viewpoints, blindly asserts moral superiority, uses administrative power to silence dissent, and employs inflammatory language to target those he disagrees with.

His moral reasoning is also fundamentally unstable and incomplete, if not altogether absent. Without any grounding for objective moral principles, his judgments are arbitrary preferences dressed up as universal truths.

Sound familiar? This kind of behavior is a microcosm of how the Covid Regime took over and maintained its power and why people like me remove themselves from its toxicity altogether.

But here’s what makes Kingsley particularly dangerous—he’s also what we might call a “midwit,” someone who appears intellectually sophisticated but inevitably conforms to mainstream opinions without deep critical thinking.

He possesses enough intelligence to sound impressive while saying nothing substantive. He cites the right sources, speaks in the approved cadence, and never says anything that hasn’t been pre-approved by his ideological tribe. He’s not a builder or explorer of ideas—he’s an operator in what we might call the “midwit industrial complex,” a system designed to reward simulated intelligence and punish real insight.

The research on political polarization and friendship loss confirms what I experienced. When people unfriend others over political disagreements, they create smaller, more homogeneous social networks that reinforce existing beliefs. Political disagreement often represents the final step in a general breakdown of a relationship—people are more likely to “unfriend” those they found unpleasant prior to the disagreement.

In Kingsley’s case, my statement about taxation didn’t create his toxicity, it revealed it.

Studies show that toxic relationships have severe psychological and emotional impacts, including depression, anxiety, and long-term trauma. Researchers at UCLA found that stressful friendships lead to significantly high levels of inflammation-causing proteins in the body, potentially causing serious health problems including diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. The physical toll of maintaining toxic relationships is real and measurable.

This reflects larger patterns of political polarization. Research indicates that 77.4% of people have unfriended someone on social media because they posted something they disagreed with. But here’s the crucial distinction: ending a relationship over fundamental moral disagreements isn’t just acceptable—it’s necessary for emotional well-being and personal integrity.

The philosophical tradition going back to Aristotle recognizes that friendships of virtue can dissolve when one friend reveals a lack of character. When major differences in deeply held values appear, the friend’s alterity—the state of being other or different—suddenly comes into sharp relief. The decision to leave such a friendship involves genuine loss but is often morally necessary.

Understanding that people without a moral center will still try to impose their values upon you makes processing the loss of these relationships much easier. Kingsley represents a larger class of individuals who lack any coherent moral framework yet insist on moral authority over others. They embody what we might call “moral superiority without morality” —claiming the right to judge while possessing no legitimate basis for judgment.

The broader implications extend beyond individual relationships. Research shows that when politically engaged people avoid cross-cutting discussions and retreat into homogeneous networks, it contributes to affective polarization—the growing dislike and distrust between political parties. But sometimes this retreat is necessary.

When someone demonstrates contempt for your fundamental values and responds to philosophical disagreement with administrative silence rather than engagement, maintaining that relationship becomes not just unproductive but actively harmful.

Never compromise your own values or accept persistent disrespect. The research is clear: the attempt to maintain positive relationships with people who exhibit contempt for your fundamental beliefs is universally unsuccessful.

Toxic people remain toxic across different contexts and relationships.

I don’t need to be judged morally by someone who doesn’t possess a moral framework in the first place. I don’t need people who respond to philosophical challenges with authoritarian silence rather than reasoned engagement. Most importantly, I don’t need relationships that were hanging by gossamer threads in the first place.

The real tale isn’t about losing friendships over politics. It’s about the danger of maintaining relationships with people who show you exactly who they are.

When someone reveals their true character—their toxicity and intellectual dishonesty—believe them. Then act accordingly.

Sometimes the most moral thing you can do is cut the toxic thread.

Discover how to build authentic relationships based on shared values and genuine respect. Learn to identify and address toxic patterns before they damage your well-being.

Visit http://OLeary.coach to start your journey toward healthier, more meaningful connections.

As always,

Brian