I mean, to clarify, I rarely find myself wanting to have a conversation about sexual assult, conversation type nonwithstanding. I also don't really come across people who would be genuinely "okay with sexual assault". But if I am going to have a conversation, I'd indeed appreciate that to not be like the aforementioned. Not that I'd think there's much to discuss per se, nor was this the actual topic of this subthread. Instead, it was rhetorics in political speech.
> Do you really need to call those who don't "insufferable" though ?
Yes, I do believe I do, because that is my genuine impression. There may be kinder ways to put it, so in a sense, I might be falling victim to this myself when I say such a thing, especially given various contexts. But then I am indeed not superhuman in any way (not in my compassion, not in my forgiveness, and certainly not in my Christianity). I just happened to find this to be the salient bit over time, among other reasons.
A kinder way to put it might be to highlight how this behavior I'm referring to is invariant to these political (politicized?) topics. Instead, I regard it as a matter of feeling really intensely about something, and that not being understood and appreciated by others. An act of desperation. And just like in any other situation when a person becomes highly motivated, the tools and goals involved become increasingly perverted, sometimes to the point of unrecognizability, or even their outright inverse. The topic doesn't even need to be moral. With enough pressure, this same process tends to invite self-identity into the picture, and then morality naturally gets dragged in. Strictly speaking, it's not even out of nowhere: if people really did think like I do, about all the things I recognize as crucial w.r.t. to the topic at hand, they would arrive at the same conclusions. Therefore, their failure to do so means their evilness and stupidity is tautological. Note the circularity of this however.
I think recognizing this kind of dynamic on oneself and others is thus self-evidently genuinely very important, and that failing to do so has severe consequences. I'm also frankly burned out over it, having read comment sections absolutely full of this for decades, which is almost certainly what's driving this for me, rather than any kind of superhuman goodness or intelligence. I have further also experienced the damaging effects of extrapolating too hard, and have been treated poorly by others extrapolating too hard. It really is just shitty. Unfair as it may be, holier than thou as it may sound, unbelievable as it may come across, acting hostile really does just suck. It does not lead to a faithful understanding of one another, the lack of which is the whole reason for this dynamic arising imo to begin with. Being understood being a gift, not a given, does not help. It's a genuinely painful hand to be dealt at times, but that doesn't mean a race to a rhetorical bottom is a sound idea.
There's a lot more to this, mostly abstract, like how the internet I think is fundamentally boosting this by virtue of people from all walks of life being mixed together, who will inevitably be going (and not going) through very emotionally involved things, this being weaponized for (political) clout, or how I think there are fundamental theoretical limits involved with how much we can understand one another, and how fair we can and should be with one another. But I think we got way off of the wrong foot, and most of what I wrote was fairly abstract as is, so that probably wouldn't be any more compelling.
You'll just have to take my word for it that this really does bother me across the spectrum, put a pin on it, then see if you'll ever find it in any way relatable.