The ideal is a very liberal one, tolerance of everyone. I do think it begins to be a problem where tolerance in of itself is in conflict. There does need a “do not harm others” baseline before tolerance. For example, I just had a conversation the other day about “armed groups” where the other person was in favor of militarizing against oppression, which is an intolerant position (War and warmongering is intolerance.) If my opinion is that I want you dead, it’s not an opinion or a view but an incitement to violence.

They planned their errand

That’s the problem if they didn’t consider the limitations. It’s a irrational expectation for the bus to be 100% efficient and always on time. Nothing is 100% efficient. It’d be a faulty expectation to assume that things (other than death, disease, aging, etc.) are certain or guaranteed.

not also deserve empathy?

Everyone deserves empathy. All sentient beings, including this hypothetical man.

Do all these other people not also deserve empathy?

Again, all people deserve empathy. It seems that you’re making this a binary, “either/or”, dilemma when I believe both the angry transit operator and the smoker are “not ideal”, though I do have a bias toward the anger because that is aesthetically uglier than the smoking.

Every moment and daily action would be rational and empathetic. Here are some scenarios I witnessed today. I’ll swap them to more ideal

~

Example 1

• Real scenario: A train operator stops the train and yells at a man for apparently smoking at the train stop prior to boarding. The operator demands the passenger leaves for breaking the “no smoking before pickup” rule. The man is flushed red and has tears in his eyes. The operator is so convicted in their anger that they have no empathy.

• Ideal scenario: The train operator does not take his anger out on others. He forgives the man for breaking the rule, as ultimately no one is harmed. The train operator uses his power and authority to ensure the man gets home safely. The train operator values the well-being of the man more than arbitrary rules because he is empathetic, forgiving, and kind.

Example 2

• Real scenario: A homeless man boards the bus. He has heavy bags he wrestles with. The bus driver demands the homeless man to hurry up to sit down as the bus operator “has to go.” The homeless man obeys but is tangled in heavy bags and uncomfortable to cater to the demands of the bus driver

• Ideal scenario: The bus driver is patient and allows time for the homeless man to sit down. The bus driver may even help the man with his stuff. The driver prioritizes their passengers safety and well-being over arbitrary things like timeliness.

Example 3

• Real scenario: A boarding passenger of the train takes a big puff of their electronic cigarette and puffs it inside.

• Ideal scenario: The boarding passenger throws away their electronic cigarette as it harms their well-being. This has the added benefit of not polluting the common air with toxic & addictive chemicals. … Meanwhile, all electronic cigarette companies had an epiphany and decides to not sell their products anymore as they realize it is killing humanity, and they do not want to profit off the sickening of their fellow humans.

~

In each scenario, the relevant actors try to be more compassionate to themselves and others. I could give more examples, but 3 is good enough.

Because it has massive implications. When I leave my house, I encounter people and i can’t treat them equally. I have to be cogizent that they are batshit insane. I’m using colorful language for effect, and i recognize it’s ableist. I mean more-so that they aren’t’ rational or intellectually honest. However, it’s deeper than that because even when I’m home, i can’t engage with people online either because they are the same people ahahaha. So I’m naming my cat “realty” so i can pay attention to reality or maybe “Clarity” because there is truth in love (such as petcare), and truth is clear.

Because I’m not insecure, nor do i feel unworthy. If people disagree in my worth, that’s their issue, and again, it reconfirms the concept that they are insane

Maybe that would be a shower essay

That’s fair when considering other massive online platforms. I guess subconsciously I assume people are somehow less insane in real life than online, but the book “just how dumb are we”, facts in history, and other statistics show people are wackos universally

It’s a complete thought. Subject + verb.

I’m not saying I’m not utterly insane too. I am a people afterall. Considering that 99% of people are non-vegan, nearly everyone is like a flesh-craving vampire/zombie. That’s just scratching the surface as being a decent and intelligent person has more filters obviously. There are asshole vegans, so “not being an asshole” is another filter that groups many people into as well. I’d say majority of reddit/lemmy people are assholes.

You and I are playing two different games. it seems like you’re trying to “take me down” while I’m just identifying your behavior patterns for the audience. False accusations, labeling & insults (e.g., troll, pathetic, incapable). These are all examples of emotional immaturity.

Each comment of yours fits the narcissistic style of speaking: Invalidation, blaming, emotional immaturity, you-statements.

yeah ok pal. Narcissistic talking style.

I was in a relationship like this and it was a PR nightmare because all our friends/family would think we are “fighting” like domestic violence when in actuality it was simple difference of opinion, like whether we should budget or what to have for dinner.

Nice dodge. No, i am just literate. I read books. I write papers. I could guess that you may be projecting.

Ok and who are you? Why should anyone care about whether you are convinced or not? Are you a bouncer at a private club?

That second part sounds like punishment (i.e., accountability, called out, and schism which I interpret to mean exclusion or banishment). Am i understanding correctly? There’s negativity and then there’s punishment. Punishment seems like a subcategory of negativity because it’s a bad, not good thing.

They don’t know how to talk constructively. Emotional topics get, well, emotional

Sure, but that’s still anti-social behavior.

The Dark Tetrad And Anonymity

The 2023 study found that individuals with negative and unstable self-perceptions are drawn to anonymity and seek the freedom to take on different personas to satisfy various needs. Individuals struggling with self-consciousness and low self-esteem also prefer to remain anonymous online.

Further, individuals with dark personality traits seem to express malevolent identities from the shadows of anonymity to engage in behaviors that gratify them, but harm others. A 2022 study published in Personality and Individual Differences examined the relationship between online anonymity and the following dark personality traits:

Machiavellianism. Individuals seeking anonymity are high in machiavellianism. This trait is associated with being manipulative and presenting deceptive and adaptable identities online. Digital environments offer people a risk-free opportunity to create personas strategically to achieve iniquitous and self-serving goals.

Psychopathy. A higher level of psychopathy, characterized by antisocial behavior and a lack of empathy or remorse, points to a greater likelihood of presenting an adaptable and inauthentic self online and deceiving others using anonymity.

Sadism. According to the 2023 study, sadism is positively associated with preferring an anonymous presence online to fulfill the need to enjoy others’ suffering, safely from behind a screen.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/traversmark/2024/02/03/a-psychologist-explains-why-internet-trolls-thrive-on-anonymity/

That’s true. They say that when couples give up and stop fighting that is when the relationship dies.

It was a nonsense answer and dodged the question. It doesn’t say anything. All in all, a prime example of negativity, and it seems that they might be habitually negative by the looks of their profile picture and history with politics