We're random anonymous internet strangers here, friend, and neither of us know the other's background. You've edited out some of the more substantial parts of

We're random anonymous internet strangers here, friend, and neither of us know the other's background. You've edited out some of the more substantial parts of your comment now, but I'll reply to everything you originally wrote. > First, I've already agreed I'd use a different word next time. I apologize that explaining the colloquial meaning of the "I completely relate to X" has bothered you. You said you weren't a native English speaker, and I was only trying to further explain what that particular phrase means. Again, I'm sorry I bothered you by trying to explain the phrase. > There's a certain type of person who uses takes language very seriously and they seem to not really care what the underlying feelings are. Ironically they talk about empathy while using it as a whip. These judgmental types will point holes at other peoples actions under the guise of empathy in an effort to virtue signal. It's quite ironic. In your original comment, I found it quite ironic that someone would say they completely relate to the struggles of the homeless as an employed and housed person, and then complain about minor inconveniences they experience from the homeless (you occasionally can't use a bathroom when drinking coffee), and the extra inconvenience they willingly endure with the specific goal of avoiding the homeless (you specifically find a place the homeless cannot easily get to so you don't have to encounter them). Sorry, but that isn't virtue-signaling. That is making an observation based on taking your words seriously as a true communication of your underlying feelings—and I found it worth pointing out there was a clear and strong dichotomy of feelings and actions when you claim to completely relate to a given struggle, while following it up with actions you take to avoid being face-to-face with people who are living that struggle. I wasn't passing judgment on the dichotomy itself, or on you—I was only pointing out the clear conflict. > Though I don't agree I'm 'guilty'. What on earth do you suggest I do? Take them home? Be with them on the street? Of course it is safer to deal with the small % homeless individuals who are unstable in a controlled environment and of course I care for my own safety. I refuse to be guilt tripped over it though. I think this is where wires seem to have been crossed. I didn't suggest you're guilty of anything in the sense you've done something bad or wrong. Perhaps this is a result of using another English idiom, but when someone says "I'm guilty of it, too", they are simply saying, "I do the same thing!". I wasn't guilt-tripping you. I also wasn't suggesting there was anything you should do differently. I was simply observing and talking aloud, recognizing more of that complexity you said existed in dealing with the homeless. I was attempting to engage you and relate to the struggle I thought we both shared as two self-employed people, with a house, who care about the homeless, think the problem is complex, and recognize that we both do things that help us avoid the homeless when we don't want to be inconvenienced by their presence and/or the challenges we're faced with. I wasn't making a moral judgment against you. I wasn't making any sort of judgment at all. I was merely observing and communicating there was something we had in common. I'm a very introspective person, and I find it both valuable and personally beneficial to look at my own actions, and interrogate them for the underlying feelings behind them. I also find it beneficial to recognize when my actions are at odds with the things I say or believe I believe—not to pass any sort of moral judgment or guilt-trip on myself, but to better understand myself. For me, there is value in reminding myself that going to Starbucks and paying for a coffee is a luxury I enjoy. It's a privilege and luxury to have money that enables me to pay for goods and services, and I recognize there are plenty of people who do not have that privilege or enjoy that luxury. Reminding myself of that is something I believe helps me keep myself in check so I do not take such privileges/luxuries for granted, or think poorly of someone who is in a different socioeconomic state. When I walk into a public space, nobody ever thinks twice about my presence as a clean, employed white man—there are no groans, I am not watched, nobody worries when I go to the bathroom, nobody makes an effort to avoid sitting by me or interacting with me. Similarly, I don't worry that a Starbucks employee will call the cops if I'm just sitting in the Starbucks. That's a very clear privilege I enjoy as a white person who has a home and earns enough money to at least go to a Starbucks whenever I want. Anyway, that's a whole lot of words to write to ultimately try to accomplish a couple simultaneous goals: 1. I apologize for offending you by taking your words too seriously and engaging them as written. 2. I think there is value in interrogating our own actions to check how they align with our values and our conception of ourselves. Recognizing when our actions oppose our values is an important part of the feedback loop that helps us better align our actions with our values—especially when being true to our values requires we accept some level of personal inconvenience. Recognizing when we avoid that personal inconvenience isn't a moral judgment on failing—it's just another data point in the feedback loop.