First, pessismism is not the same as realism. Yes, pessimists exist.
pes·si·mist /ˈpɛsəmɪst/ Pronunciation Key - [pes-uh-mist]
noun: a person who habitually sees or anticipates the worst or is disposed to be gloomy.
pes·si·mism (pěs'ə-mĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key
noun 1. A tendency to stress the negative or unfavorable or to take the gloomiest possible view.
2. The doctrine or belief that this is the worst of all possible worlds and that all things ultimately tend toward evil.
3. The doctrine or belief that the evil in the world outweighs the good.
This implies of course that a pessimist does not take what actually occurs at its face value. Instead, the pessimist takes the situation as it actually occurs and represents it in a negative light. Hence, negativism,
pessimism. This of course contrasts with realism, which is more of a kind of objective approach to any situation. See below.
re·al·ist /ˈriəlɪst/ Pronunciation Key - [ree-uh-list]
noun 1. a person who tends to view or represent things as they really are.
2. an artist or a writer whose work is characterized by realism.
re·al·ism /ˈriəˌlɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - [ree-uh-liz-uhm]
noun 1. interest in or concern for the actual or real, as distinguished from the abstract, speculative, etc.
2. the tendency to view or represent things as they really are.
3.
Fine Arts. a. treatment of forms, colors, space, etc., in such a manner as to emphasize their correspondence to actuality or to ordinary visual experience. Compare idealism (def. 4), naturalism (def. 2).
b. (usually initial capital letter) a style of painting and sculpture developed about the mid-19th century in which figures and scenes are depicted as they are experienced or might be experienced in everyday life.
4.
Literature. a. a manner of treating subject matter that presents a careful description of everyday life, usually of the lower and middle classes.
b. a theory of writing in which the ordinary, familiar, or mundane aspects of life are represented in a straightforward or matter-of-fact manner that is presumed to reflect life as it actually is. Compare naturalism (def. 1b).
5.
Philosophy. a. the doctrine that universals have a real objective existence. Compare conceptualism, nominalism.
b. the doctrine that objects of sense perception have an existence independent of the act of perception. Compare idealism (def. 5a).
The problem with the comparison between a pessimist and a realist is that people often confuse a pessimist with a realist, that is in terms of literature. A pessimist is not a realist. Not even close.
And yes, pessimists exist. In fact, I have a friend who is clinically depressed, arguably a pessimist when he refuses to take his medication.
Secondly, on the issue of compromise. Compromise is not a natural state of a disagreement. A compromise is a stalemate, an agreement to disagree. It neither resolves a problem, nor does it prevent future problems from arising, unless the compromise is like a peace treaty, in which case, the preceedings are so impersonal that they fail to address what is actually going on
anyway. When the parties want to solve a problem, they have to actually combat the issues that brought them to the particular situation in the first place. Which means, that no
compromise in its true form is found because change occurs after the parties set out to agree in such a way that means neither has to give up his position while the other gains.
Third, "giving up" isn't an adjective, nor is it meant to be one. It is meant, instead, in a verb phrase. Whether or not you think that the problem isn't me giving up, it is me being stubborn is completely immaterial to the situation I described. If you read the beginning of the post, the only thing that my friend told me was not that I was
only giving up. That was the final determination.
You don't sound like a complete idiot, but it is clear to me that you don't understand the situation at all, and, like the friend I initially confided in, decided to comment on situations that you don't comprehend. And, really, the only fault lies in the fact that you decided to comment before you understood the situation well enough. So, the fact that you don't understand isn't really your fault, it's more along the lines of we don't talk enough, and you've assumed that what you knew about me applies today.
Why is it that the both of you have assumed that I don't understand the motives of my antagonist. Why is it that my vision must be clouded? Simply because I'm involved?
And I have tried this so-called fix, compromise, by doing everything except for spilling blood to reach him. He has done nothing.
I'm the problem?
Done.