comment: >
  
  I don't think you are using the term correctly. Red flag isn't just a flaw or incompatibility with someone. It's not as simple as disliking something about the other ie the other person participates in some hobby you don't like or eats certain food. Red flag is a behavior that is toxic or concerning, it may in the future lead to abuse and it usually shows that someone is a bad person in some way( treating his colleagues badly, name-calling you,  etc). I don't think you should trivialize the term to equate it to something everyone possesses because it's mostly talking about abnormal/ unhealthy behavior in a normal situation.
context: Actual red flags are things a therapist will warn you about as signs of narcissism, abuse, or emotional neglect. These are things people need to know before getting involved with someone, and aren’t just personality quirks.
  People may say wearing crocks is “red flag” but it’s not really the correct use for the term. >
  
  Well yeah, everyone has flaws which might be seen as a red flag. Not all red flags are red to everyone though. >
  
  If "everyone" has red flags, then I would argue that suggests you've dropped the bar for what constitutes a "red flag" so low as to make the term useless. >
  
  Interesting & valid take! >
  
  Every red flag is a flaw, not every flaw is a red flag, OP. Maybe that's what you were aiming to? >
  
  Most people are imperfect but don't have red flags. 
  IMO a red flag is something that should give you serious pause about a relationship on its own. Most people do not have that >
  
  In terms of what red flags should be (signs that someone is a danger to others), I agree. The internet seems to have expanded the definition to signs that someone isn't an ideal partner. I just wish they'd call those flags yellow or orange or something.