Disagreeing with someone's opinion isn't interfering with it.

Marginalizing someone’s identity is interference with a person’s honor, also contrary to the principles of human rights.

This is the problem, it goes way too far.

Suddenly we've got people so incapable of existing in an environment where there is gasp some disagreement, that folks go around saying that not being supportive of somebody's opinions and preferences is a violation of human rights.

That isn't explicitly what you are saying, but you are also very much not leaving room for that.

People have largely lost the ability to disagree, and to differentiate between somebody who disagrees with them and somebody who thinks their opinions and preferences shouldn't exist... and at the same time we have lots of people all over the spectrum who really do think only their way of thinking is acceptable and nobody who thinks differently should exist.

It is unacceptable and more pointedly, unsustainable from all sides. You can't have a society survive where people only think one way of thinking can survive.

One of the core foundations of the logical reasoning behind human rights declaration by UN is the following statement

> Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law

> People have largely lost the ability to disagree, and to differentiate between somebody who disagrees with them and somebody who thinks their opinions and preferences shouldn't exist

That could very likely be a result of the traumatic oppression that much of the world subsists within.

What does that have to do with opinions?

In your own words:

> The problem is that people entangle their sense of identity with their opinions.

When two ethical principles are in conflict, one has to take an even harder look at the formal ethics to either choose between the principles or to synthesize a newer, more informed principle.

Typically something like that ends up in the court of law, but academic philosophy and scientific ethics researchers often contribute meaningful avenues of avoiding the need for the application of justice to redress harms by providing legislatures with more clear ethical principles upon which to build their legal frameworks for justice.

I wasn't specific enough in what I said.

To be sure, I think people's opinions about things (and any sense of identity they have in those opinions) are sacred and inviolate as far as social structure and society are concerned. It's morally and civilly wrong to treat people badly on the basis of their opinions.

I was just pointing out how some people take it so far that one can't even have a thoughtful discussion with them in which one is taking up a contrary position without them feeling offended (and perhaps even angry/combative). Some people even try to shut down contrarians. To such people I'd say: calm down and discuss your point of view civilly. The truth is strong enough to stand on its own without your non-discursive help.

Yea, identity politics may very well end up going down in history as a social engineering failure of the left based in a misunderstanding of ethics and science.

Similar to how the Capitol Riots could be construed as a social engineering failure of conservative political forces.