Intolerability?

I've been thinking about the concept of tolerance recently, or more specifically the point at which things should or could become intolerable. Not the kind of 'tolerance' Slavoj Zizek refers to in his comment that 'Tolerance makes everything boring, we need more conflict!'; though he does have some very interesting things to say about political [in]tolerance and what that action/non-action/non-engagement (of any kind) means in the real world. 'Why is the proposed remedy tolerance', he asks, 'rather than emancipation, political struggle, even armed struggle?' (for more, you could look at this PDF - from which the latter quotation is lifted - although reading any Zizek is worth it, and more often than not raises similar themes). That type of tolerance is of course implicit in any notion of intolerance or - particularly - intolerability, but it's tangential rather than central to my musings.

No, what I'm wondering is possibly more personal, and more concerned with one's actions once we decide something is (comparatively speaking) intolerable. How is the 'intolerable' defined? Turning to the OED:

1) That cannot be tolerated, borne, or put up with; unendurable, unbearable, insupportable, insufferable:
(a) Physically
(b) Mentally or morally

My interest is in sense (b) - that of the mentally/morally intolerable.
The danger with words like this is to slip into hyperbole or overstatement. Doubtless I will, because very little is genuinely 'intolerable' - most things are, however unpleasantly, put-upable-with. In the case of physical pain, most often we lose consciousness or go into a deeper state of unconsciousness still and die; in the case of mental, the extreme includes going mad (a type of unconsciousness, or at least a different consciousness) or committing suicide.

Assuming that there is little we can do about the real mental intolerabilities, chemicals running rampant through our bodies and brains to an extent which no drugs or reason can touch, and that really cause madness in the sufferer - in which case that might be argued to be 'tolerable in a different state', as the mind is forced to entirely change in order to accommodate said rampant chemical or state; though of course if a complete and unalterable change must be implemented that probably means the thing that causes it really is intolerable, as if we can't keep some semblance of ourselves amidst our reaction we aren't really managing very well to do much but breathe and be an annoyance in society. So. Assuming that is the case, it's the moral intolerabilities that are interesting.

Essentially what I'm asking is, at what point do we stand up and say "No" to something we find abhorrent? When, "Stop"? When is the line crossed between personally offensive and societally worrying? Does one of these matter more than another? Who gets to deem something 'societally worrying', anyway? The government? (Hopefully not, or suicide really is the only option given I can't will myself mad). As is often the case, what provoked this train of thought was something superficially quite mild (though, as always, it boils down to The State Of The World etc.): The News. Media. Reportage.

I cannot stand watching the news. It makes me feel physically sick. Everything about it: the way the newsreaders speak; inane/insulting/ignorant questions asked of the 'roving reporters' or commentators; the images it's deemed fitting to show to accompany the godawful scripts; the intrusion of reporters/photographers into the lives of normal (or even not-so-normal) people; the priorities of headlines down to items less 'newsworthy'; the very concept of newsworthiness. I can't remember the last time I managed to watch the news without walking out in disgust (and it's always walking out or turning off - changing channel is never an option because I'm always too riled). If the ridiculous scripts don't get to me first, the images do: I find them disgusting, morally. I hate the desperate scrabble to be closest to the scene of the latest bombing or war (can't it be reported safely away from the flying mortars?); to be the first to interview the surviving relatives of a "tragedy" (sometimes they really are tragedies, but on most occasions the word is used by the media the situation is not Tragic - get a sense of proportion) with insulting questions - "How do you feel about losing your entire family in the fire?", "What do you think about the Islamic terrorists who killed your father?"...to take the most shocking pictures of things we can imagine quite well ourselves, thank you very much.

This has gone on for years. I keep up to date with things current and political by reading newspapers because - just about - I can filter through the crap at my own pace, and am not too often out-faced by the appalling presentation of the horrific state of the world as 'glamorous'. The financial pages are quite calming, I find - numbers, ups and downs, games of business. (Though in the recent stock market mess those boundaries became uncomfortably blurred). So I flick between 'real news' and finance to stay sane. I also refuse to have a 'regular' paper, and consequently rotate the main broadsheets more or less regularly. If a tabloid is around, I'll flick through it to see what's being said, but I will never buy one - they have too much money for their crimes already. Listening to Radio 4's Today is good, as there's rarely one person saying their thing for too long, and even if they are there's often someone there to argue with them. This doesn't stop the stupid questions being asked, but it does provide more real balance than any visually-broadcast programme (all of which are shorter).

The other worry with visual news is our desensitisation to those images, the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (War, Famine, Pestilence & Death). When I watched the news regularly (I stomached it between the ages of about 14 and 17), I simply got used to it. Now, it repulses me - physically and morally - because I'm not used to it (and, now, refuse to get used to it), and probably because the boundaries of acceptability have also changed. I don't want to feel comfortable looking at these things; I don't want them to be in my face until I shrug and say "that's life" or "oh look there's another war"; I don't ever want to see those images on the screen, belittled already by stupid or badly-advised commentators and reporters, and to have a disinterest - caused by familiarity - enough to simply flick over the channel to watch something more interesting or entertaining.

The media, reportage, 'News', is something that makes me really and constantly angry. About other things - about education (a subject close to my heart, mind and irritation), religion, politics, people - about these things I get a wee bit cross, I might rant a bit and let off steam, I might occasionally let out a yell of frustration. But mostly these things annoy me because what they are (at any given time) doesn't make sense, or people aren't thinking practically or sensibly (ever the logician...). Few things anger me without fail, and I rarely fail to see the good in things. Except in this case (and maybe one other, but that's not coming into the equation here). I find this situation intolerable - I cannot accept it, I can't live with it, I can't get out of my head the staggeringly detrimental effect it must be having in so many ways. An immediate reaction is to avoid it, to avoid The News (particularly visual, remember) - but this isn't a solution; it's a bit like hiding under a bed when things are going wrong, as you remove yourself from the problem but don't remove the problem itself.

And I can't find a way away from that anger (or, for any length of time, its cause). I can't commit myself to changing the system, because to do that would necessarily mean getting actively involved with it - something I simply can't do. It's not like it's one-sided reporting I'm so against, so I can't set up a rival organisation in an attempt to squash it. My inclination, always, is to tolerate everything within reason, and when the edge of reason arrives to take positive steps to change the situation causing (or containing) the intolerable. Very often this is a practical solution, and remarkably easy to implement (on a small scale. I've not yet figured out how to stop people killing each other on a worldwide stage...). But with this I'm stuck: I can't tolerate it because I find it so unutterably wrong, but I can't find a way to solve the problem.
Which means, I suppose, that I'll have to live with its intolerability (that, or suicide). But that itself is tolerating it, isn't it? Or is anger, constant anger, enough to count as a stand against the intolerable? And is it our moral duty (in whatever sense you want to interpret that - I have my own way, you will have yours) to remove ourselves from the influence of that we find intolerable, or to stop it? If the former, suicide looks an attractive (theoretical) option; but I'm always inclined towards the latter - changing things that are wrong (I live in hope, you see...). But what if I believe I can't change that particular thing (assuming that's realism talking, not pessimism - a constant debate, that)?

It's all circular, curious and infuriating. Maybe the ultimate defence mechanism is to slide into a stupor of not caring (or a stupor of ineffective but self-righteous anger, naturally!)? Then nothing is intolerable except the immediately personal, in which case there is no 'moral duty' to do anything, and one may slip quietly into unconsciousness through madness or suicide.
I don't know.