I want some unbiased opinions so I will try to write this from a third person perspective.
There are two friends and they have the kind of relationship where they are open about everything and talk about everything. You could say that it's similar in its depth to a familial relationship or a partnership. We will cal them friend X and friend S.
X is going through a lot and therefore is emotionally overwhelmed at times. S is also going through a lot, but not nearly to the same degree. Both friends are neurodivergent (adhd) but friend S is neurodivergent in a way that is probably more problematic for social interactions.
Both friends mostly interact over text, which S claims is a medium that lacks the nuance of other conversational mediums such as voice, video or real life. Friend X is prone to outbursts of rage over text and Friend S believes that this is because the medium lacks the nuance that could indicate for Friend S that Friend X is about to burst and therefore change their behavior.
I'm sorry that this is kind of dry and robotic, but I really want to get an unbiased perspective, which is very hard when you write things in your own words.
Now here is the issue. When X bursts, S usually would apologize but try to indicate that the conversation lacked the nuance that was needed to understand that this is an explosive topic. And friend x has in the past said that they will try to be clear about how they feel before reaching the point of an outburst.
X doesn't accept this argument and ends up blaming S for lacking emotional intelligence. S on the other hand feels that accusing them of being emotionally unintelligent is insulting and unproductive, while X claims that saying that is just defensive and avoiding responsibility.
You don't have to say who is right or wrong in this situation, but I would like to understand if calling someone emotionally unintelligent can be productive or is it just straight up like calling them dumb as they might claim.
Going through pain and stress doesn't give X a license to blow up on people. If that is X's thought process, it will quickly lead to X being isolated because of how they treat S and other people around them. Thats not what healthy relationship friends do to each other.
No X would not be justified in blowing up a S. However, X has options that don't include blowing up to protect themselves long before a blow up point.
If S is pushing for responses on any subject that X isn't willing to discuss, then X can make that unambiguously clear. "I'd rather not talk about it" should be understood by most people, in the event S doesn't get it, X can say "I am not going to talk about that. S, do you understand what I'm communicating? This is an off-limits topic. If I ever change my mind at some point in the future, I will let you know. However, from now until the end of eternity that is off limits." There's zero ambiguity in there. X has closed every loophole of doubt or misinterpretation. Some people have difficulty with social cues and 'hints'. Remove the ambiguity. Lay it out clear (but X doesn't need to be a jerk in the language used). If S is one of these, they won't be offend and likely appreciate the clarity.
If S asks about the topic again, a single gentle reminder is needed. "I've discussed this with you already. That is discussion is off-limits. This causes me discomfort to have to remind you again on this as I'm concerned you're not respectful of my feelings on this matter."
If S asks about the topic again in the future "This is the third time I've had to let you know this topic is off-limits. I'm going to leave/stop talking/hang up/block you for now."
When X decides decide to re-engage with S again, if this S continues to bring it up, then I would recommend X distance themselves from S. Its entirely possible S just never gets it. That could be who S is. X may not be able to change that and S may be unwilling to change. If S's behavior to is too incompatible with X, they should go their separate ways. Some people just shouldn't interact with one another.
Part of life is dealing with other people and their personalities, while also managing our own. The above is an an example of both of those things.
Now, with ALL OF THAT SAID...
Is it possible that S is saying words that X is misinterpreting? S may be physically saying "How are you doing?" and X is interpreting that as a literal interrogation of their physical health status which X is sensitive to. It is X in this case that is blowing it out of proportion because "How are you doing?" is a common greeting in most cultures. It isn't unreasonable for S to ask this in most cultures. If its this, then X can choose other words as a greeting and ask S to use those instead. "S, I understand its a regular greeting but I'm getting irrationally triggered by the greeting 'How are you doing?'. If you're trying to greet me, which I appreciate, can I ask that you use a different phrase that has nothing to do with my health or how I'm feeling? I'm happy to hear your suggestion for one, I can come up with one, or I'd love if we could work on together. You are my friend and I'm letting you know this is something I need that will greatly help me. I believe as my friend you want the best for me too. I am telling you this is one of the things that will help me. Are you open to doing this with me?"
I know I have greetings with specific friends that don't even sound like greetings because they are inside jokes from our shared history. It makes us closer that I can say something otherwise nonsensical as a greeting and they understand it too as a greeting. Thats an example of a deep friendship.
Thank you, this is a lot to think about and I appreciate it.