The enlightened position is to separate the person from the behavior, but I'm not always so enlightened.

HaHa! :D Very well. Yes, it's fair to separate the action from the actor and name the crime but not assassinate the whole character.

Why talk about it at all? What is the point of giving a name to talk about encounters where one person was particularly difficult to get along with? Why do we always tell the same thing? What is the point of being confirmed that there are people you perceive as highly disturbing? What do you gain from that?

Two monks sit on a hill and gaze silently into the landscape. One of them says, "Look at the majesty of the mountains, the beauty of the forests and the mighty eagle!" To which the other replies, "True. I only wish you hadn't said anything."

While it's true that there are moments of disappointment, resentment and anger, why is it so salonable to emphasise such things?. You find these topics all over the internet ("how to spot a narcissist" type of publications).

not sure what 'principled toxicity' means.

The comment would become too long to explain what I mean by that. I talked about these "principled things" on my newest blog post. I invite you to read it.

Bye bye and greetings.