When I was in the Marines, 50-75 of us lived on a single floor in an open squadbay. We were trained to kill, we had guns and knives, and we were young and uneducated. There was a lot of testosterone in the air, a lot of muscle-flexing and getting in each other's faces. There were racial issues, class issues, and so on. We were packed in like sardines, all showered, shaved, and shit in the same bathroom, and people were always getting into shoving matches.
We had to have mechanisms for getting over our disagreements quickly, or people would have ended up dead. We had to get along and work and live together 24/7. We didn't have the luxury of indulging long-running feuds. And, in fact, there seemed to exist a some kind of social mechanism for how to deal with petty squabbles--probably an Fe thing.
Basically if person A started talking shit and ended up getting person B or several people riled up, then some third parties would intervene and lean on person A to back it off. If he was smart, person A would realize he maybe crossed a line and he would make some kind of concession: "Okay, maybe I was out of line. I still think it was fucked up, but I guess I have to suck it up and not go shooting off my mouth about it."
The same third parties would then go to person B and tell him that person A had made a concession, and now it was time for person B to yield a little and allow person A to "save face." Sometimes person B didn't want to do that; person B wanted to play butthurt and try to wring a full apology out of person A. But the third parties would again intervene and tell person B that he's not getting a full apology. And if person B persisted in playing the martyr/victim/butthurt, then person B would become the object of censure, not person A.
As for this thread: I skimmed a few of the high points in the thread, and the dynamics here seem similar. Sounds like WUR crossed some line, but then backed it up a bit and admitted that maybe her initial remarks had been injudicious and over-the-line. Some people accepted the concession and were willing to let the issue die; others are still playing butthurt and insisting on a much bigger concession before they'll let it go. In other words, there's a lack of consensus about how and when to let this thing die.
I think that this is also Coriolis's point: not that INTJs are special, but instead that other types would know when to let this thing go.
I'm not suggesting any particular course of action here. I'm just saying that at some point person B has to know when to let it go. You can't play that "victim" trump card indefinitely. You wear it out, and you start looking like an idiot. Noblesse oblige. If WUR makes a concession, then it behooves the other party to make a corresponding concession, rather than trying to milk the situation for an even bigger payoff.
Just my opinion, of course.