Was chatting with a friend the other day about how I’ve become more tolerant for friends who upset me. In the past, I pretty much had a three strikes rule: hurt me thrice (if I even let you get to that stage) and I shut down.

But lately, I’ve been noticing that I’m more ready to tolerate people’s hurtfulness keeping in mind their long friendship. And if I decide to shut down a friendship, I do so with the recognition that it might resurface.

My friend pointed out that she’s become less tolerant of misbehaviour in friendships. Before if friends messed up, she’d let it slide a lot. Now not so much.

I realised that while I’m more tolerant of friends and their foibles, I get annoyed more easily. Before I could just smirk and smug at people being annoying. Now it really bugs me.

On the other hand, I’m more likely to let people’s stupid opinions at parties slide.

Which brings me to another thing that I’ve been thinking about which someone else posted about (but I can’t remember who… if you’re a reader of this blog, please stand up and I’ll link you): if at a party someone is proclaiming an opinion that is not just completely contrary to what you think but also of the hate-spreading variety (such as: maybe it’s good if Pota is applied to “screen” Muslims; gay people are unnatural and evil), do you intervene and contradict them. Or if you’re pretty sure they’re too bigoted to change their minds and might get nasty, do you just stay silent?

I used to jump in and argue but the more grown up me seems to be taking the pacifist route. I’m not sure of the morality of staying silent on these things though.

Advertisements