[DougN7]

If the reaction is actually knee jerk/automatic before the upper brain(?)/concious tolerant/empathetic side can take control, is someone a jerk for having that primal response first. I consider myself very tolerant and empathetic and I do my damndest to be that way, but my wife says sometimes it’s not the first thing that shows. I’m trying as hard as I know how. Should I be condemned?

[seba_dos1]

I may try my hardest to be a great musician, but I'm not and surely won't be anytime soon. It's accepting your current shortcomings that may lead to improvement, not considering yourself good just because you try hard.

It's difficult and it's fine to struggle with it.

[aleph_minus_one]

> Should I be condemned?

You shouldn't be condemned, but as I wrote, people should stop the hypocrisy and virtue signalling of pretending to be so insanely tolerant if they have such a primal response.

[wrs]

If they didn’t have a negative response, it wouldn’t be tolerance, by definition. Tolerance means engaging with something you have a negative response to.

[Arainach]

It's not hypocrisy or virtue signaling if people are choosing to be tolerant.

If someone is standing near the train tracks and sees a train approaching a stalled car, they should be praised for choosing to run over and help even if their initial instinct is to get as far away as possible.

[idiotsecant]

It's not virtue signaling to try to be better. Stop making this weird.