I'm afraid that all that means is that the way you use the word is different from the way others use it:
1. full of or containing poison. 2. harmful; destructive. 3. deeply malicious.
Granted that I also saw it and thought "there are no poisonous people, there are only people who have poisonous behaviours (amongst their other behaviours, some of which are non-poisonous", that's a pedantic semantic difference and is the sort of thing which gets /me/ told off for being picky and (if I persist) disruptive and (see meaning #2) destructive to the conversation. It's the sort of thing which gets /me/ told "you know what I mean, you're just beng awkward".
In the original context the term "poisonous people" is being used the same way as "poisonous snakes" (more correctly venomous), it's a a shortcut. Is it a dangerous shortcut? Yes, /I/ think so, the same as saying that a person "is bad" or "is a failure" (see "is of identity"), but in general conversation most people will use the shortcut and will get annoyed by people who correct them (in some cases offended because they are aware that they are using the shortcut). And indeed it does tend to derail the conversation onto what you and I think about the language used instead of the actual behaviour under discussion, which is what that video is about (allegedly; I haven't had time with access to a machine capable of playing it). It isn't about anyone making anyone else a "non-person", it's about a term almost everyone else understands about the behaviour of some people.
(Yes, I did read the thread, or as much of it as I could find in public form via Google, and my comments are based on that and what I saw of the reactions of the posters there.)
no subject
1. full of or containing poison.
2. harmful; destructive.
3. deeply malicious.
Granted that I also saw it and thought "there are no poisonous people, there are only people who have poisonous behaviours (amongst their other behaviours, some of which are non-poisonous", that's a pedantic semantic difference and is the sort of thing which gets /me/ told off for being picky and (if I persist) disruptive and (see meaning #2) destructive to the conversation. It's the sort of thing which gets /me/ told "you know what I mean, you're just beng awkward".
In the original context the term "poisonous people" is being used the same way as "poisonous snakes" (more correctly venomous), it's a a shortcut. Is it a dangerous shortcut? Yes, /I/ think so, the same as saying that a person "is bad" or "is a failure" (see "is of identity"), but in general conversation most people will use the shortcut and will get annoyed by people who correct them (in some cases offended because they are aware that they are using the shortcut). And indeed it does tend to derail the conversation onto what you and I think about the language used instead of the actual behaviour under discussion, which is what that video is about (allegedly; I haven't had time with access to a machine capable of playing it). It isn't about anyone making anyone else a "non-person", it's about a term almost everyone else understands about the behaviour of some people.
(Yes, I did read the thread, or as much of it as I could find in public form via Google, and my comments are based on that and what I saw of the reactions of the posters there.)