It's not about having opinions, it's about spending energy arguing about them. Everyone has opinions, but they're not going to go to war about ice cream flavors, nor should they. It's worth going to war with people who think keeping slaves is okay. It's not worth going to war over which brand of phone people use.

Overzealous tribalism can lead to otherizing and dehumanizing and all sorts of terrible things. Let's save those side effects for things that are a little more important than which car you like to drive.

You're comparing the civil war to people texting each other on social media.

Nobody has ever gone to actual war over personal opinions about cars, phones or computers.

People routinely destroy cities when sports teams win or lose. Get in brawls because someone is wearing the wrong color. The list goes on. Of course it's not the same, but the kernel of otherizing remains.

OK, but nobody has ever destroyed a city over opinions about technology, among many, many other things that people argue about online such as favorite celebrity, music, cars, etc.

Just because you can cherry pick a couple of examples of people destroying things over their opinions, that doesn’t mean anybody’s going to actual war and it doesn’t mean that having opinions or even arguing about them is bad in general. It’s human nature.

I get the point though - being less opinionated can be good and if you find that you’re better without them then I support that. I have sometimes wished to go live on an island or in a cave myself, to escape the constant culture war but instead I just turn off my Internet devices. Most days I just wade through it to find the stuff I agree with.

IMO your identity is how people think of you. You might think of yourself as an credible person, but if other people don't think so then what's your identity? You might think of yourself as a safe person, but if other people don't feel that way, then what's your identity?

In this perspective, identity is about relating to other people, whether on matters of Chevy, Apple, or skin color.

This strikes me as the belief of a person who doesn't have much of their own self-identity.

I certainly don't need others to tell me whether or not I'm a credible person.

When we go to listen to a doctor or lawyer, do we do so because we know the reality inside a doctor's head, or because the doctor relates to the rest of society through high credibility? To what degree does being a doctor affect your relations with the rest of society?

If a doctor knows they're good enough, is that good enough?

Why not both? \0/

Obviously every person has their own personal view of themselves and everyone also has their view of other people. Which one you call "identity" is pedantry.

This multi-universe of identities is allowed. Through interactions they may change - or they may not. They are used to inform our decision making in either sense.

They are all allowed to exist simultaneously - whichever one you value more.

Indeed from what I've heard it seems that DeWalt is despised by many professionals, while some feel that Makita is only one step up.

DeWalt is just another brand owned by Stanley Black & Decker https://www.stanleyblackanddecker.com/

Makita is a standalone company that doesn't have a stable of brands (although potentially some OEM?).

See https://pressurewashr.com/tool-industry-behemoths/ for lists of brands owned by parent companies.

Not saying that you can't judge by the "brand"; just saying that many people are unaware that many brands are somewhat cosmetic...