Commentary should have called problem what it is: intolerance

It is telling that in their commentary, Jared Mead and Nate Nehring were not even able to name the problem (“It’s up to us to chart a path forward and together,” The Herald, Jan. 17).

“Hate” was the euphemism they used, but it is “intolerance” (the root and branch of hatred) that is the cause of much of our domestic discord. But to call it by its proper name, for them to say it clearly — intolerance — they would quickly find themselves at odds with those they answer to, who proudly and virtuously have “no tolerance for hatred,” which is to say, no tolerance for those they neither understand nor agree with. It’s a shameful situation, but given how deeply entrenched the attitude has become, we’ll just have to live with it.

Mark Anderson

Snohomish