Indeed, when we talk about respect we don’t really mean agreement but rather a suspension of continued discussion so as to not to greatly piss off your interlocutor. Isn’t that a standard response when we shut up? The issue has become too hot to continue discussion? Or we are offending them, sincere or not, such that they are willing to terminate discussion, friendship, familial relations, etc if you don’t stop disagreeing with them.

Diplomacy bases itself on “keep talking”. As long as communication continues there is hope of resolution. This also allows interlocution blackmail where the threat to leave can become its own ends and means of forcing the direction of discussion. This playing the game of chicken in conversation. Just how close can you nick without drawing blood.

The desire fro privacy does alleviate negative feelings but does not necessarily create the change desired. Civil disobedience and burning tires in the street can have a strong effect. It can also backfire. But generally martyrs and underdogs are popular. Diplomatically, you want to use the minimal amount of rhetorical force necessary to create change to minimize backlash. I think this is an art but as demographic tracking gets more sophisticated that line will be played and predicted more closely.