I would define cordial relationships as different than friendships. I do not know you, but I find it difficult to believe you and I would be friends if I did not align with your belief system. I don’t think you would take it as a personal attack, but I do not believe you would spend what limited time you have with an individual that was not open to exploring their beliefs in a humanistic way.
Discussion
Not sure about that. I make friends pretty easily with people I disagree with quite easily, if they're the kinds of people who are open and curious about opposing views. I became friends with #[3] over a three hour argument, for example.
This was my point. You are able to establish relationships with people who you have assess to be open and curious. Even though you may disagree, they abide and align to your belief system which you use to identify yourself. Booth is part of your “in” group. The “out group”, are those that don’t align with your belief system. These people may be classified as ignorant, close minded and shallow.
We all do the same thing, you’ve just elevated your belief system above the others because you deem it to be superior.
I guess I'm a certain reducio form of the argument, you're correct? But I'd argue it's straying far from the underlying point, which perhaps I thought was implicit, but now I'll make it explicit, by revealing the normative claim: a society that tolerates diverse opinions, and a polity that accepts the idea that not everybody gets their way, but everyone is of equal franchise, is a good thing.
*in a certain reducio form of the argument.
Yes, this part of your note is easily understood and we are in agreement.
I was pushing back and exploring this part of your point:
“If your personal identity is tied to a belief system of any kind, and you consider attacks on that belief system to be a personal attack. And, you tend to constrain your personal relationships to people who share that belief system, you are simply part of identity politics. That is what identity politics is.”