Battle-scarred:) yes, that's a feeling I also know, but which I now try to experience less often, because I try to solve it alternatively. Which of course doesn't always work. Thanks for the honesty. It was the same with me recently, when I shared a wholesome experience and it was answered with ridicule, just two weeks ago. It hurts, but I told myself: My friends answer reflected more her own difficult relationship to the matter - and in the end it had nothing to do with me.

But why you also seem to be less inclined to report about an experiential dissolving of an angry impulse, I suspect, that people react much more strongly to your pain (anger) than if you don't offer them any of it. People usually react a lot more to expressions of anger and sorrow than to equanimity. You can hardly write an article with equanimity, people often don't know what to do with it. They only want to read about love too if it is really romantic or heartbreaking. The great stories and metaphors, as beautiful as they are. However, they are not real but illusory, even if they are well suited to represent the theatre of life.

I take the liberty of asking you a few more questions:
The first situation you report seems to be personal and it seems to be about people you know?
Have you been instructed by the victim to act, in other words: is it an adult person? If so, then it is not only this person who bears the responsibility for what you then receive as the task of action, but also you. However, you would still have to get the official assignment, since you would be acting on behalf of another person. If words do not reach the perpetrator (which I could understand if I were the perpetrator now and someone with whom I don't want have to do speaks for my chosen victim), I would say that you wish to let fists speak. I doubt whether they will do what you want them to do, but I am playing the devil's advocate and going through a scenario with you. Since you would then commit an immoral act, you would have to bear the consequences accordingly and why not, because in fact we only have these principles because we violate them, otherwise we wouldn't need them.

Is this a life-threatening situation?
But: Are you quite sure that there is a clear separation between the interests of the people here? Are you sure you don't identify too much with the person you want to protect? The mandate of the person you want to protect, however, would have to be very clearly expressed and desired, otherwise you would not be acting on behalf of the person, but merely acting as if it were so, although you actually would want to act for yourself and the other is only a projection screen of your desire for justice.

But of course, I deliberately spoke provocatively, because in fact, if you don't have a personal dependent conflict with a person, but someone else, then it would be appropriate for the person concerned to exhaust all possible options before asking for help, wouldn't it? In any case, I am in favour of clarifying the orders cleanly and then accepting the consequences, which may be "punishment" if you violate a moral rule yourself. Yes, in this sense gravity catches us all.

So do you want to make it your own business or isn't there still a reasonable doubt that the victim presents the situation to you in such a way that it is a really crystal-clear victim-perpetrator business? In my experience, it is usually not so clear.

It could very well be that the matter really doesn't concern you from the perpetrator's point of view and it is logical that he thinks that you can save words anyway. Even the gentle ones. He may not listen to your words, but he may listen to someone else. Who knows?

Are you sure that you do not own your anger? And that you do not work more than the victim works?

I can objectively acknowledge morality as right and subjectively distance myself from explaining it to someone who is ignorant. I can criticize his immoral deed, but I can empathize with his human existence as a sentient being. The potential of another whom I want to encourage to morality can only be awakened if I understand how to communicate this difference perceptibly.

The effect of acknowledging objective morality and subjective absolutism in this matter would be that I do not distinguish action from man and thus make him an owner of a fundamental immorality, i.e. deny him his sensitivity.

It's a challenge, this conversation and I am thankful that you reassure me that I am not stepping over your borders.