If you find that dislike (of people) and irritation are "painful" in some way (which you might, since you're presenting it in a question, possibly as a problem to be solved), then maybe Metta would benefit you.

For example:

• Q: "I find that when I fight with people, I get hurt?"
• A: "Then don't fight with them!"

Or for example the Dhammapada includes verses like,

5. Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.

Isn't that, I don't know what to call it, sensible and ... obvious?

How can I be Buddhist if I feel this way? I cannot force a warm fuzzy feeling of metta.

A warm fuzzy feeling isn't required. For example if people are living in a "burning house", as the metaphor goes, a "warm fuzzy feeling" isn't the appropriate reaction.

I'll mention, in case you didn't know, "Metta" is not one but one of a group of four related attitudes:

These four attitudes are said to be excellent or sublime because they are the right or ideal way of conduct towards living beings (sattesu samma patipatti). They provide, in fact, the answer to all situations arising from social contact. They are the great removers of tension, the great peace-makers in social conflict, and the great healers of wounds suffered in the struggle of existence. They level social barriers, build harmonious communities, awaken slumbering magnanimity long forgotten, revive joy and hope long abandoned, and promote human brotherhood against the forces of egotism.

 

The Brahma-viharas are incompatible with a hating state of mind, ...

I'm not sure what Buddhist teachings you're trying to follow, but "aversion" is one of the problems, unwholesome roots, which Buddhism tries to solve or free you from. I think you can infer that from the first noble truth, which includes:

to be with "the unpleasant" (also translated as "what one loves not") is suffering

Also if you're worried that you're expected to force warm fuzzy feelings to be a Buddhist, I don't think that's true. Buddhism is kind of a Middle Way. Sometimes its doctrine is pretty absolute (e.g. "no killing, no lying, etc."), at other times I find that there are two sides: for example it teaches compassion but also dispassion, good-will but also non-attachment, non-aversion but also dismay and urgency, having "admirable friends" but also "solitude" and renunciation, release.

If you find that dislike (of people) and irritation are "painful" in some way (which you might, since you're presenting it in a question, possibly as a problem to be solved), then maybe Metta would benefit you.

For example:

• Q: "I find that when I fight with people, I get hurt?"
• A: "Then don't fight with them!"

Or for example the Dhammapada includes verses like,

5. Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.

Isn't that, I don't know what to call it, sensible and ... obvious?

How can I be Buddhist if I feel this way? I cannot force a warm fuzzy feeling of metta.

A warm fuzzy feeling isn't required. For example if people are living in a "burning house", as the metaphor goes, a "warm fuzzy feeling" isn't the appropriate reaction.

I'll mention, in case you didn't know, "Metta" is not one but one of a group of four related attitudes:

These four attitudes are said to be excellent or sublime because they are the right or ideal way of conduct towards living beings (sattesu samma patipatti). They provide, in fact, the answer to all situations arising from social contact. They are the great removers of tension, the great peace-makers in social conflict, and the great healers of wounds suffered in the struggle of existence. They level social barriers, build harmonious communities, awaken slumbering magnanimity long forgotten, revive joy and hope long abandoned, and promote human brotherhood against the forces of egotism.

The Brahma-viharas are incompatible with a hating state of mind, ...

I'm not sure what Buddhist teachings you're trying to follow, but "aversion" is one of the problems, unwholesome roots, which Buddhism tries to solve or free you from. I think you can infer that from the first noble truth, which includes:

to be with "the unpleasant" (also translated as "what one loves not") is suffering

Also if you're worried that you're expected to force warm fuzzy feelings to be a Buddhist, I don't think that's true. Buddhism is kind of a Middle Way. Sometimes its doctrine is pretty absolute (e.g. "no killing, no lying, etc."), at other times I find that there are two sides: for example it teaches compassion but also dispassion, good-will but also non-attachment, non-aversion but also dismay and urgency, having "admirable friends" but also "solitude" and renunciation, release.