i am not sure how this came out or if i made my point, because there's not really enough mental space here to think.

it doesn't bother me to have disagreements. it's not the disagreeing that is disagreeable. i'd go so far as to say that the disagreement is agreeable. why? because it's through the disagreement that i learn. how can you learn from agreement? you cannot. you can receive validation, but you cannot learn. learning, by definition, requires exposure to ideas that are different than those that you already hold.

i don't automatically disagree with things i don't know. learning does not by default involve disagreement. conversly, disagreement doesn't always involve learning about or even hearing or being exposed to new concepts. i can disagree with concepts with which i am familiar. but, say i disagree with a familiar concept, and then someone who espouses the viewpoint in support of that concept comes around preaching on it, i will listen. why not listen? i might learn something. it's possible that i am not completely informed. it's not going to hurt me to listen.

it's not going to hurt me to change my mind, even. my opinions are not who i am. they are part of who i am, but my opinioins don't define me. i define my opinions. i am in control.

being exposed to viewpoints with which i disagree is a good way to learn, and having a disagreement can be civil. you can exchange ideas, listen, learn, perhaps modify your opinion, perhaps not. disagreement can go smoothly. it's when folks won't listen, when they shut down the opposition, that disagreement becomes disagreeable. it's being shut out, not listened to, that is intolerable.