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
of fearful-future intolerance
against accepting invitations to 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
remains at least non-lose/lose communication,
verbal and non-verbal,
Still open to becoming more virtuously,
and legally,
tolerable.
gdill52 