Misperceived Intensity In Conversation

Raising your voice even slightly, showing ferocity or passion even if it is not rooted in emotionalism, or adding profanity (regardless of tone!) makes some people uncomfortable, and they might go so far as to assume that a rationalist is the one being emotionalistic and they are the rational one!  For whatever reason, some of these people are more prone to make this assumption if they are reading text, such as an email or a website comment, that has no accompanying body language or facial expressions.  Yes, this absence does mean a sometimes significant amount of communication context is missing, but it absolutely is always irrational to assume.  It is not as if it is not possible to be sarcastic, dry, or even emotionally neutral when using intense words anyway.

In fact, it would be logically possible for a rationalist to use a harsh tone or to intersperse profanity into confrontational dialogue just because they know what does not follow from it, even as they realize that their conversational partners might be stupid enough to immediately, thoughtlessly assume that they are hostile when they are not or are emotionalistic when they are hostile.  It would not even have to be the case that they are trying to deceive anyone.  They would be just being themselves without being irrational, and the error of making assumptions always is the fault of the one making them.  Short of literal mind control, no being could make another being believe, say, or otherwise do anything at all.  I simply cannot know what lurks behind other people's tone, and if they are the same kind of being I am, neither can they with me.

I do not know what other people are feeling no matter how they move their limbs, what words they choose, or how they use eye contact or any other such thing.  If what they are saying is true and knowable, whether that communic is in-person or digital, they might still be emotionalistic in some way, though I cannot see if this is the case from mere outward observations.  What I can know with absolute certainty from direct rationalistic introspection is if I feel or do not feel a certain way, or if I am not allowing it to affect my epistemological and metaphysical stances.  One can be extremely aggressive, in truth, without being emotionalistic at all, either in that they hold their beliefs on the basis of feelings or in the sense that they are hoping for someone to be wrong so they can have a legitimate target for ideological anger.

Wanting people to be in error so one could be harsh with them--harsh, but not hypocritical, cruel, and so on--is irrational.  Still, being genuinely harsh to the point of shocking the more timid, peace-oriented, or idiotic people of the world is not irrational, nor is it even Biblically sinful.  No, the person who is unprepared to confront (Matthew 10:34), mock (Psalm 2:4-6), divorce (Exodus 21:9-11, Deuteronomy 24:1-4, for example), or kill (Exodus 21:16, for instance) for the sake of reason and morality is ultimately, even if they do so out of non-emotionalistic mercy, unprepared for life amidst irrationalists.  Non-obligatory harshness is not required, though its absence complicates life in its own ways.  Life with staunch non-rationalists can be brutally difficult either way.