Intolerant to Intolerance
They say there can be too much of a good thing. It is also said that some efforts prove to be too much. In both instances, there is no gauge. We self-decide on amounts because that’s all we have to go by. That accounts for the difference between the amount of pain one human being can handle versus another. That also accounts for an easy method to describe a situation without having to provide real data. I am unsure if there is really too much of a good thing. I am equally unable to know what effort would be too much for anyone other than me.
Tolerable
In Austen’s novels, the word tolerable is used to describe a character’s answer to a question about their health or general demeanor. It is an apt description for the time. Probably even better than just stating fine as we tend to do currently. Tolerable does not exaggerate in either direction. It just maintains a middle point. It would be fun to say it more often if it didn’t result in having to explain its use over and over. It sounds nice and semi-snooty. It doesn’t demand any follow up questions to define it. It doesn’t invite interest. It is just tolerable.
Exhausting
Being intolerant has an aura of radical impossibility attached to it. Connection is not implied and is of lesser importance that the stand taken. Humans often can’t accept seeing anyone suffer without wanting to change the situation or feeling obliged to jump in to rescue them if possible. Ordinarily, a human would not run into a burning building, but if there was a beloved dog trapped inside they would rush headlong into the flames. The tolerance to pain overpowers logic. That tolerance is usually based on affection. Outside of a firefighter, no one would try to rescue an animal that they didn’t know by putting their own life on the line. They would tolerate the loss.
Unwilling
The true nerve of intolerance is likely to be more of an unwillingness to accept someone’s view. It implies more of a struggle. It feels more like a choice to demonstrate an inability. There are food intolerances based on some harm that could occur but the dire consequences of those are meant to really define when intolerance should occur. Instead, some choices humans make are intolerable because they are fear-based. It often results in separating humans just when they really need to get into a conversation. It is an easy out. Think about it this way. If you had two ten-dollar bills left in your wallet and saw a human in circumstances that demanded your compassionate side to give them one, you would comply. But if they reached out and took both of those tens, you might react differently. It is good to have your own gauge to tolerance to understand when it would make a difference to you. That’s a tolerable place to start.
Is there something that you cannot tolerate? When do your views become important enough to persuade someone else to tolerate them? Does intolerance always have adverse effects?
