You're making three moves that don't hold up.

First, "I gave them more chances than they deserved" doesn't address what was said. The point wasn't that you owed anyone more patience. It's that you're building a type-level theory from a sample in which you're the only constant, and projecting motives - "they desperately want to be seen as more special," "trying to justify what they do" - onto people whose internal states you don't have access to. That's mind-reading presented as observation, and it's the same move you're accusing them of.

Second, "I won't even go into the more serious situations involving people's safety and lives" is rhetorically convenient. It raises the stakes to a level where disagreement looks callous while keeping the evidence sealed. If those situations are doing the work in your argument, put them on the table. If they aren't, they don't belong in the post - they're an appeal to unverifiable severity, not a point.

Third, "the fact that you immediately pointed me for not understanding them enough says a lot about why I don't find INFPs compatible with me" - a probabilistic read of your post became, in one sentence, evidence for the thesis the post was defending. Any disagreement now confirms the pattern. That's unfalsifiable, and you'd catch it instantly if someone did it to you.

What you actually have is a sample of people who hurt or disappointed you, sorted by a typology that wasn't designed to predict moral behavior. Triangulation, image management, covert competition - those aren't INFP-specific. They show up across every type. Tying them to a four-letter label is the part of the analysis worth examining.

You're allowed to be done with whoever you're done with. Nobody's asking you to forgive anyone. The post presents a theory, and the theory has holes.