For what it's worth, aren't political opinions about what the practical applications of justice and goodness are? If you were going to boycott someone over anyt

For what it's worth, aren't political opinions about what the practical applications of justice and goodness are? If you were going to boycott someone over anything, wouldn't it be those? If someone else's opinion falls within a reasonable spectrum from our own, it's fine to accept them. When the difference becomes great enough, you're obligated to reject those views. Where you draw the line is up to you, though there is often a societal consensus on what a reasonable Overton window is like. The problem with your argument is that you want everyone to get along, but you want them to do it regardless of extreme differences in how different people want to shape the good life. It's hard to cooperate with someone that fundamentally opposes everything you stand for at your core and, importantly(!), wants to impose their views on you. This is important because it is far easier to tolerate differences between groups that do not impose their views on each other, which is the situation in which I agree with you more often than not [1]. If you want everyone to get along, you need to show why on particular issues, or for overarching reasons, it's not worth rejecting each other. Otherwise, I find what you say hard to accept when examined below the merest surface. [1] A counter example would be a group that is murdering or mutilating its own members, and those members ask for help. That would be a clearly justified case for external intervention.