Or acceptance of difference. The underlying notion many seem to believe is that they are inherently right and so all they need to do is express their "mind-space" to somebody else, and that other person will come to feel the same.
But the thing one forgets is that the other person also often feels exactly the same. And it's not even a matter of one person being right and another person being wrong.
In any sort of reasonably complex topic, people can see the same data and make informed conclusions that are mutually exclusive. Seeing successful persuasion or violence as the only ends largely simplifies down to violence being the only end. Or, "The History of Humanity."
That only works if both sides do it. The problem is that there are many political ideologies across the entire spectrum that are unwilling to accept the difference to the point of resorting to violence to remove it.
Except certain resources are exclusive. For example, global human effort. How much global effort should be expended towards fighting climate change? In cases like these, people can't just accept their differences, a choice has to be made.
Acceptance of difference only works in cases where both parties share the same reality. There can be no acceptance of different opinions about positions that don't agree in objectively measurable facts. You can accept different opinions on economic policies, you can't accept different opinions on whether smoking causes cancer.
But the thing one forgets is that the other person also often feels exactly the same. And it's not even a matter of one person being right and another person being wrong.
In any sort of reasonably complex topic, people can see the same data and make informed conclusions that are mutually exclusive. Seeing successful persuasion or violence as the only ends largely simplifies down to violence being the only end. Or, "The History of Humanity."