The dangerous safety of conflict aversion

This thread was retweeted by someone I follow on twitter. 

I think it is a very important set of ideas - read through and I'll highlight a few things below:

Really early on he says what may be the home run of this whole thread for me personally: 

"Many smart people... are putting their own conflict aversion and self-image as open-minded above the republic"

It hits home for me - First of all, I definitely want to be open-minded. I absolutely don't want to shut out valid information, just because its coming from a source I don't agree with. And while 'valid' is an important qualifier, it needs to be further unpacked. It would be easy to say that I don't want anything to do with false, misleading information, but that's part of the problem with how our bubbles get made. The ideal situation would be the ability to take in all the information, regardless of what bias it comes from, confidently sort out what is true, then form opinions and take action accordingly. In that scenario, you are not only forming the most educated, highest quality opinions you can, you are also aware of all the information that may lead other folks to different conclusions; it means you can intelligently comprehend why someone may be disagreeing or coming to a different conclusion. Of course being aware of everything isn't possible, but distilled down, I think the goal should be proactive seeking of information with critical thinking as a necessary step prior to absorption. 

Secondly, the statement mentions conflict aversion. I hate conflict, and it is very attractive to just sit back and watch, feel comfortable just having morally and ethically sound ideas and principles but not taking action on them. Very attractive, very easy. This blog is certainly part of making myself do better than succumb to conflict aversion instead of take action. Today I sent e-mails to the Government Accountability office to voice how important I think it is for the office to actively prohibit Trump's conflicts of interest in order to avoid corruption. I slightly modified the template below, and used the addresses based on the recommendation of a friend who called the agency. 

You can send one email addressed to:
siggerudk@gao.gov, minellit@gao.gov, congrel@gao.gov
Subject line:
Re: Audit for President-Elect Trump's financial concerns
Dear Ms. Siggerud and Mr. Minnelli,
I’m writing in support of Senator Elizabeth Warren's request for an audit of our incoming President-Elect Trump's finances, to prohibit conflicts of interest that would prevent him from carrying out the responsibilities of the office without corrupt influence.
Sincerely,

Filler

Oops. I was doing so well, updating a couple times a week.

This post, I have not researched any new topic.

The WOTD is Mansuetude. It means mildness or gentleness, but it looks like man-sweat to me, and I'm not sure I get along with this word.

Here are some blog posts I want to make in the near future -

1) Purposefully reading books by authors who are not white men

2) I am such a wimp about making calls to support issues, even though I know it is more better than e-mailing

3) The start of a conversation I had with my state senator

but for today. here's what I love, and what sometimes I literally do just to feel better for a few minutes. I look at petfinder at pictures of adoptable dogs and now also rabbits. This makes me happy because puppies are adorable (and when I say puppies, I mean dogs, of any age). Sometimes it isn't entirely happy, because I find a wonderful puppy who I know I would just love, but I know I can't get a dog right now, so it won't be that puppy. I know I want to help that pupper, though, so maybe the whole exercise is actually more about me reaffirming to myself that I am a guy who loves dogs and that I can feel good about myself for wanting to take care of a doggo that needs a home. Is that helping anyone/anypup else right away? nope, just helping me. So it's a self-care thing that, as soon as possible, will lead to being a pup-care thing.