Intolerable Questions

Is it a virtue of legal, or just plain logical, process to tolerate the morally intolerable? Regardless of therapeutic opportunities to communicate dissent, loud and clearly vocalized articulate and explicit resistance. Is it an immoral act to participate in the Win/Lose market for climate pathology if you could not know whether you are recast as oil-baron predator or as a life-long perpetual child praying for matriarchal cover? Is it a corrosive vice to tolerate the intolerable? To settle for only Win/Lose options in a ZeroSum stingy world. Do I tolerate, even celebrate, most everybody except those who are intolerant? Why does feeding openness to tolerating change feel so risky? Alarming past critical events confronting disloyal oppositions fade into memories of chronic dis-associations against those also intolerant in diverse ways. Am I a good person if my most celebrated values advocating diversity, and my more internal integrity of voices valued and heard, and cared for feel like fragment fading shreds of intolerable wonder and awe? Why is your here and now intolerance, my fearful-future intolerance, against accepting invitations to mutually stretch tolerance? Now invested in building apartheid-trusting walls rather than win/win interdependent webs. Why is my self-righteous intolerance fair, just? Yet your fears and terrors, impatience and suffering, intolerable neglect of win/win mindful opportunities are not OK, not healthy democratic enough, too elitist, too explicitly ignorant of implicit win/win hope, remain at least non-lose/lose communication, verbal and non-verbal, Still open to becoming more virtuously, and legally, tolerable.