Congratulations on your continued efforts to educate the patient on the efficacy and flexibility of the term “intolerant.” He appears, quite clearly, to appreciate that describing his opponent as such instantly confers upon the patient the status of the aggrieved (and, thus, morally superior) in any debate. Indeed, where properly used, the term forecloses substantive debate on any issue altogether, for his opponent will fear “cancellation.” A most wonderful tool to advance radical or ridiculous propositions that otherwise could not survive even minimal scrutiny!

The patient, from time to time, may question the term’s efficacy and utility. He may even briefly consider engaging his opponent (or even the Enemy) in defense of patently absurd and incoherent notions.

Do not despair. Simply explain that unlike other overused pejoratives, the potency of the terms “intolerant” and “intolerance” is relatively undiminished by promiscuous use. On the contrary, once applied, its stain remains nearly indelible, thereby relieving the patient of any need to engage someone so plainly contemptible.

If necessary, gently remind the patient how effective shutting down debate has been throughout history. (Remember 1917? 1939? No, you are too young. Trust me, it was glorious.) In doing so, however, take care that he does not view his actions as similar to those of patients from past — shall we say, challenging — eras. This may produce in him a sense of shame or guilt, two utterly useless qualities. Assure him that debate is unnecessary because all right-thinking people (of which he is inarguably one) know that the particular issue of the day is settled, and he is, after all, on the side of progress, as were all of our most celebrated patients throughout history.

In my next letter, dear nephew, I shall endeavor to instruct on the proper use of the felicitous term “diversity.”

(Apologies to Mr. Lewis.)