Hate is a Strong Word: How Toxic Positivity Silences Authentic Emotion

“The most common form of despair is not being who you are.” – Søren Kierkegaard

Language shapes how individuals process and express their emotions, serving as the bridge between internal experiences and external understanding. Yet, in conversations, there is an all-too-common reflex to interrupt and correct emotional expressions deemed “too strong.” A person might express frustration, saying “I hate how I was treated,” only to be met with “Hate is such a strong word. Don’t you mean dislike?”

These corrections may appear benign, even helpful, but they reflect a broader cultural discomfort with emotional intensity. This policing of language is often tied to toxic positivity—the relentless insistence on optimism at all costs. While positivity has its place, its toxic variant suppresses complexity, promoting superficial harmony at the expense of emotional authenticity.

This article explores the interplay between toxic positivity and language policing, examining the cultural forces that shape these interactions, their impact on individuals, and the broader implications for society.

The Rise of Toxic Positivity

Toxic positivity stems from an aversion to discomfort, both personal and interpersonal. It is reinforced by cultural messages that equate happiness with success, productivity, and moral virtue. Popular phrases such as “Focus on the positive,” “Look on the bright side,” and “Everything happens for a reason” illustrate this mindset, framing positivity as a moral imperative rather than a personal choice.

Historically, the roots of toxic positivity can be traced to self-help movements and wellness industries, which have long commodified happiness as a measurable and achievable goal. Social media has amplified these ideals, creating a curated reality where only success, joy, and gratitude are celebrated. In this environment, negative emotions are not only unwelcome but often treated as failures to maintain the “right” mindset.

This cultural backdrop normalises the policing of language, particularly when it conveys emotions that challenge the veneer of positivity. Words like hate, grief, and anger become targets for correction, reframed as excessive or inappropriate. The result is a culture that prizes emotional neutrality over authenticity.

Language as a Tool for Emotional Truth

Words are not just vehicles for communication; they are integral to how individuals make sense of their experiences. Strong words such as hate, despair, or rage carry a depth of meaning that cannot be replicated by milder alternatives. These terms allow individuals to articulate the intensity of their emotions, providing clarity and catharsis.

For instance, saying “I hate injustice” is not a mere expression of personal dislike but a moral stance. The word hate conveys urgency, highlighting the speaker’s deep conviction and the gravity of the issue. To replace it with dislike is to diminish its weight, reducing a profound feeling to something trivial.

Toxic positivity, however, prioritises comfort over truth. By discouraging the use of strong language, it diminishes the speaker’s ability to express the full spectrum of human emotion. This suppression has far-reaching consequences, both for individuals and for society as a whole.

The Policing of Words: Common Scenarios

Language policing manifests in various settings, often under the guise of promoting civility or encouraging optimism. Below are detailed examples of how this dynamic unfolds, illustrating its pervasive nature:

1. Emotional Expression

• Anger:
  • Policing Statement: “Calm down,” or “You’re overreacting.”
  • Context: Often occurs during discussions about personal grievances or systemic injustices, particularly when the speaker’s passion challenges the listener’s comfort.
  • Impact: Anger is dismissed as irrational or unproductive, silencing conversations about necessary change.
• Sadness:
  • Policing Statement: “Don’t cry,” or “It’s not that bad.”
  • Context: Common in moments of vulnerability, such as when someone shares a personal disappointment or failure.
  • Impact: The expression of sadness is trivialised, leaving the individual feeling isolated or ashamed of their emotions.
• Grief:
  • Policing Statement: “You should focus on the good times,” or “They wouldn’t want you to be sad.”
  • Context: Frequently heard in conversations about loss, especially when the grieving process extends beyond what others consider “acceptable.”
  • Impact: Grief is reframed as a problem to be solved, denying the mourner the space to process their loss fully.

2. Strong Language

• Hate:
  • Policing Statement: “Hate is such a strong word. Don’t you mean dislike?”
  • Context: Common in casual conversations where someone expresses frustration or moral outrage.
  • Impact: The intensity of the emotion is minimised, undermining the speaker’s experience.
• Despair:
  • Policing Statement: “Don’t be so dramatic,” or “Things will get better soon.”
  • Context: Often occurs when individuals articulate feelings of hopelessness, particularly in vulnerable settings.
  • Impact: Despair is reframed as an overreaction, shutting down opportunities for deeper understanding or support.

3. Identity and Belonging

• Accents and Dialects:
  • Policing Statement: “That’s not proper English.”
  • Context: Seen in professional or academic environments, particularly when non-native speakers or regional accents are scrutinised.
  • Impact: The speaker’s identity is undermined, perpetuating linguistic prejudice.
• Gender Pronouns:
  • Policing Statement: “Why is this necessary?”
  • Context: Occurs in group settings or introductions where someone expresses their pronouns or discusses their identity.
  • Impact: The speaker’s identity is dismissed, reinforcing exclusion.

The Consequences of Silencing Language

Policing language has significant consequences, both for individuals and for society. On a personal level, it fosters self-censorship, teaching individuals to suppress their emotions rather than confront them. This suppression can lead to heightened stress, anxiety, and feelings of isolation.

Culturally, the policing of language perpetuates a fear of emotional depth. It discourages meaningful conversations, framing complex emotions as inconvenient or excessive. This dynamic is particularly damaging in discussions about systemic issues. When terms like racism or oppression are dismissed as “too harsh,” it undermines efforts to address these realities, prioritising comfort over progress.

Challenging Toxic Positivity

Addressing the silencing effects of toxic positivity requires a shift in how emotions and language are understood. Emotional literacy—the ability to recognise, name, and articulate feelings—is essential. This involves:

1. Normalising Emotional Intensity: Recognising that strong emotions like anger, grief, and despair are natural and valuable parts of the human experience.
2. Resisting the Impulse to Correct: Allowing people to express themselves fully without reframing their words to make them more “acceptable.”
3. Encouraging Nuance: Valuing strong words such as hate or grief as tools for authentic communication rather than viewing them as excessive.
4. Creating Space for Vulnerability: Cultivating environments where emotional expression is met with curiosity rather than judgment.

Reclaiming Authenticity Through Language

The suppression of strong language reflects a deeper discomfort with emotional authenticity. Words like hate, despair, and rage may be uncomfortable to hear, but they are vital for understanding the depth of human experience. By embracing this complexity, it becomes possible to foster connections that are not only deeper but also more meaningful.

Language is not merely a tool for communication; it is a reflection of the soul. Honouring the full spectrum of human emotions—including those deemed “negative”—is essential for creating a culture of empathy, authenticity, and growth.