oh god no no that's not what i meant!! i wasn't saying that is how fe is...shit...no i meant to just put it into terms everyone could understand and relate to. like everyone knows in that scenario the individuals rights trump the majority.
i was just saying we zero in on the individual. what is "right" by them without deciding what is right for the collective. like...ideal for me is that each individual in a group feels they have a voice and that people compromise to get the most of what's important to the individuals by bending in other ways that are less important.
I'm not sure this has more to do with function preference than it does a person's general outlook on human relations. Function preference has more to do with how a person determines whether the situation corresponds with their preference or ideal, and not so much that ideal itself.
In your scenario:
Fe: What has gone on in this situation has triggered feelings of sadness/discomfort/indignation within me. These feelings let me know that something about the situation is wrong, and now I can look to see what it is about the situation that causes me to feel this way. Ne might imagine being in the bullied person's place, and what hearing those words might personally feel like. This is still Fe processing because the trigger for the feelings comes from the external world. If it seems overly collectivistic at times, that might come as a result of the collective emotional triggers weighing more heavily than an individual trigger, especially if there is little experience a person has in relating to the individual. However, in your example, the weight of the bullied person's emotional triggers could easily outweigh those of the group, especially if there is shared experience. The collective is wrong, in this case, so the solution is to change the collective's behavior. Part of doing that is providing logical arguments for everyone having a voice and compromising (the Ti approach).
If I understand correctly, the Fi approach starts from the realization that the observer feels "wrongness". The panoply of emotions that the person feels all coalesce around the particular truth that what is occurring feels holistically wrong. These emotions are not so much the response to particular triggers, as they are constant points of reference that illuminate and explain the world more fully. So, since the bullying situation feels
wrong, without any reference to the participants, this clarifies the truth of the situation. The question is then who the "wrongness" resonates most clearly with, which in this case is the bullied person as victim, and members of the collective as perpetrators. The focus is on that victim, because their suffering is what damns the situation as wrong in its totality. The collective could avert its role in the wrongness by acting in a certain way, but the victim has done nothing to be a part of the wrongness, and yet, is inextricably so. This deep injustice permeates and infects the whole social structure, and so defending the victim at all costs becomes necessary to contain the injustice. Then, external rules and structures are to be put in place so as to prevent these scenarios where injustice is inevitable (Te approach).
I could be wrong about this, though.
Both believe in individual rights and compromise, but for vastly different reasons.