I find it incredibly frustrating to see specific descriptors of behavior, for example "parasocial", taken to mean in all instances "bad". Or for a positive example, people will take the idea of someone as "selfless" as a universally positive trait. They will then wield these terms as functionally undifferentiated from good and bad. It seems so incredibly reductive and useless, and full of the sort of social puritanism that makes many online spaces so unpleasant to exist in.
To jump back to the parasocial example. People love to bandy it about as the gotcha card for people that enjoy livestreams. And of course, basically all forms of interaction in that context are parasocial. But parasocial doesn't mean bad. There are even healthy aspects of parasocial relationships for most people. But the negative connotations have ruined the word to mean only "bad attribute related to watching livestreams".
And in the same way, a person can easily be overly "selfless". To the point it damages their relationships because they don't care about themselves. It's certainly something we as a culture claim to celebrate. Which is why it's so frustrating to see people use it to label something as "good" strictly because it was selfless, regardless of the actual outcomes.
It's very tempting to assign values to behavior, and then look at the world in that lens. It's useful. It's simple. It seems effective. But it's false, and it's false in often obvious ways. But it's also hard to argue with because online, it just tends to result in you being pilloried for standing up for something "bad".
I'm not sure what the point of this rant ended up being, but damn is it ever frustrating to watch every variation of every endless discourse with this phenomenon at it's core. It's not just some semantic or linguistic argument either. It's that people internalize these associations and can't even think of unpacking them without unpacking the whole world view that builds around that kind of thinking.