Well, that was certainly how it seemed to read. Saying that someone's feeling of discomfort is an illusion, and that being uncomfortable will go away if they endure the experience... that certainly sounded like advocating they suffer through an unpleasant experience one some vague hope that it will improve.
Again, I am advocating against suffering. Going through an unpleasant situation does not necessarily lead to suffering. It can lead to gain, pleasure, or enlightenment. Examples: Rock climbing, falling off a bicycle, asking someone out for a date. I would not suggest anything that simply leads to continued suffering, nor am I likely to advise anyone to hold out any "vague hope" although I cannot decide that for other people. But it would be irresponsible of me to suggest that people purposefully aviod things that are uncomfortable but not harmful; that does tend to lead to suffering.
if Player 1 backs down... he keeps playing the game and has one roleplaying approach changed or removed.
Imagine you ask a kid what they want for their birthday. They say, "A dog." You say, "Anything besides that." The child is saddened. Do we reassure them that numerous other options exist?
I am having a lot of trouble resolving your claims of counseling with the sort of sentiments you are advocating.
Perhaps I am a very bad counselor. Or then again, perhaps you are simply unfamiliar with some ideas with which I am familiar that explain my reasoning.
Telling someone that their feelings don't matter, that they are an illusion, or are unreasonable... that if someone is in a situation that makes them uncomfortable, it is their fault... that logic really, really bothers me.
I said I do not think it is useful to assign blame. If making the situation someone's "fault" unfairly bothers you, I wonder why it doesn't bother you that Player 1 is being blamed for Player 2's emotions.
Again, you can criticize behavior without making it a value judgement on the person responsible. If someone says a remark that I find offensive, I can point that out without claiming that they were intentionally trying to offend me.
If I wanted to be really daring, I could observe that I was offended by their remark.
If someone walks up to me and pushes me, he's the cause. Whether I get upset or not, whether anything else results from this, he is responsible for shoving me.
That's a very different situation. You've already stated that Player 1's "shove" was not problematic. That is, their roleplaying was not inherently out of bounds.
It is different because I do not choose whether I am shoved. Whether I wish to be or not, whether I am aware of it or not, shoving is a physical act imposed on me and I cannot help but respond as any other physical objects met with force.
I do choose whether to be offended. (At some level; I don't necessarily make a conscious choice "I will be offended right now" but whether I am offended or not depends on how I view the situation). There is no statement or action that is inherently offensive. It gains that property only by offending someone. If I offend you, it is because you have chosen to be offended. I am not saying you should not be offended, nor am I saying you should. But the meaning of offense is that you are not happy with my behavior. I could engage in a similar behavior with someone else who may not be offended.
So in other words, whether I have done something wrong or not does not depend on a feeling. Simply because you feel offended does not mean I have wronged you. Simply because I do it knowing you will feel offended, and you do not wish me to do it, does not mean I have wronged you.
In order to determine whether you have been wronged, you and I have to agree on what constitues ethical behavior. "I have the right not to be offended" presumes you have some control over whether I am. In fact, I can be offended even if you try not to offend me, and I could refuse to be offended even if you purposefully try to offend me. The right not to be offended is based on the myth that you have control over my emotions. "I hold you responsible for my feeling offended," is just a nonsense statement.
Imagine a group of five players. Player 2 doesn't like PC-on-PC romance, Player 3 doesn't like same-sex player-on-player romance roleplay which includes the GM in a number of pairings, Player 3 doesn't like remorseless slaughter of creatures for loot, Player 4 doesn't like moral justifications for using force against others, and Player 5 doesn't think violence should be glorified at all. Player 1 wants to play a little romance, a little adventure, a little of this, a little of that; they don't like scheming.
So do the five players figure out some way they can get along? Or do they create a game that has no romance, no violence, no moralizing, no violent heroism, and no elaborate scheming?
So, again, this is not assigning blame. This is about assigning responsibility. Player 2 is responsible for their desire to participate or not, and is responsible for their own fun. Dealing with Player 1 is probably not beyond their capacities. Player 1 is responsible for doing actions they know bother player 2, but they may decide, "Ok, I acknowledge that, but so what? Player 2 is asking for something I don't think is reasonable." Player 2 may be left with a choice: do I remove myself from a game I decide is not right for me, or do I acknowledge I can deal with something?
there is no "universal law" that says Player 2 is allowed to glom onto an existing game and insisting the group change play styles. That's not a real social rule. That's like a football player joining a soccer club and picking up the ball.
