Nah. It’s fine. You might find it advantageous to navigate the world by humoring the people too full of themselves to realize they don’t deserve an ounce of respect. But they don’t, and it’s fine if you don’t want to give it.
so instead, 'be nice', because 'respecting others opinions' (even if delusional) is the true virtue
besides, insisting on a 'correct way' for the group means that individualism itself is flawed, and so is therefore heretical..
The issue is that everyone is insisting that there is a DIFFERENT "right" way. So of the 30 or 40 "right" ways in a group of 30 or 40 people, there has to be some system for settling on 1 "right" way. So what ensues, without anyone consciously realizing it, is almost an election. Where the group settles on one "right" way. And any holdouts are said to be difficult intransigent people.
It's a bit like a court jury. All 12 jurors actually have their own opinion. But over time, they select one opinion as the consensus opinion. The reason for selecting that opinion can be different for each juror, but any juror not accepting the consensus opinion would be considered a hold out. I'd even wager that the other jurors would just as soon not be on a jury with the hold outs in the future.
Having mentioned all that, the material point here is that every initial opinion in the group can be "wrong". The consensus opinion is only the opinion that the group promotes as its own. Being the consensus opinion doesn't mean that it's correct, anymore than being a dissenting opinion means that the dissenting opinion is correct. It's entirely possible, in fact oftentimes likely, that both opinions are "wrong".
Come to think of it, the issue of our culture’s ballooning expectations of positive public expression seems to persist at a fairly continuous rate regardless of race/gender. And, while race/gender discrimination exacerbates all social inequalities, inherent systematic inequalities like cultural expectations and capital inherently elude acknowledgement in an inspection of identity lines.
The angry label gets applied far earlier to women and black people.
https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/3/17/14945576/black-whit...
Now imagine if the Black person shows signs of anger.
On the other hand. I once had a really tall (White) manager who you could tell would go out of his way to stand further back from a crowd so we wouldn’t have to look up at him. I’ve had to tell my tall and big stepson to be mindful of his size. He still thinks of himself as this little kid (not in a bad way)
Let’s consider the causes, potentials, and limits associated with addressing the given concerns.
If critical theory has it’s way, the explosion of positivity is part of a built-in feature of commercial capitalism which incentivizes avoiding the problems itself creates. The ceiling on mitigating socially implemented racism is dependent on mitigating the economically implemented racism which associates identity with class, which defines our experiences and therefore our stereotypes.
Given the economic incentive to avoid economic explanations, the cost of disproportionate blame deserves strategic consideration.
Though to support your point, from what I could tell he had that rep with some in the office. But that was probably inevitable given the environment (very white collar) and his personality (certainly not angry but not at all passive either).
The problem is most often anger comes from a series of injustices at the office. Not one singular event.