The premise to agree to disagree and not stand up for what is right reminds me of an Prairie Public Television documentary about Germany before and during the 3rd Reich. Really wish I could remember the name of the series as it was outstanding. A major point that was asserted was the majority of Germans were good people that suffered as a result of the policies that took place during that era. The disastrous path was possible by a majority of Germans simply agreeing to disagree and not stand up and protest polices that were not good.

I actually have a long list of things I do not “agree to disagree”
This list includes but is not limited to:

Honor Killings
Female genital mutilation
Child Trafficking
Asserting as fact (supported by evidence) faith (no evidence) based claims.

I actually care about truth and to allow faith to be peddled as fact is dishonest and in need of severe mitigation.

The list goes on.

How the hell can you bully someone over a coaxial cable ? Come on . That's not possible. try " stop listening, watching" that'll do it

You should never have to grant equal status to magical thinking. I am willing to grant a person the right to believe what they want but I will call it like it is. Belief in gods, miracles or anything supernatural is to believe in fiction and fairy tales as reality. To state that truth is not disrespectful or bullying, it is simply stating the truth.

I never liked the agree to disagree thing. The guy I work with uses it to back out of arguments. There is a definitive true/false, correct/incorrect nature of things. Being a bully is one thing, but there is an underlying truth about whatever aspect of reality is in question. Blocking discussion and argument with an arbitrary statement is a weak tactic. Also a tactic of the bully.

You have cast a rather wide blanket statement.

For example, I personally don't think it is ok to have sex with children. I base this belief on the psychological trauma I have observed by many who were sexually abused as children.
Therefore, If I were to encounter someone promoting NAMBLA, I will be considerably less then pleasant and polite to that individual/s assertion that sex with children is a good thing. I would go out of my way to argue why (for example) how NAMBLA does not promote the best outcome for the health of our society. It is reasonable to anticipate such a debate would turn hostile as I would introduce rather ugly stories that demonstrate the damage their "ideas" that are different then mine have adversely effected many people.

Like it or not, there are belief structures that do not serve the best interest of our society.

I could fill pages with examples of unnecessary suffering, abuse, and even the death of children that were a product of a belief structure that does "have the same ideas or they look at things differently." then I.

By your definition because I am well informed and willing to put forth effort to reduce damage to people, “I am now a "closed minded" bigot.
. . . . sad. . .

There’s a real challenge there, though. So much of what we read depends on that voice in our head. If we read a comment through mom’s filter, always telling us what we’re doing wrong, then a comment can suddenly turn ugly even though it wasn’t meant that way, and then things escalate.

Then there are those who simply cannot be disagreed with and take it personally if they are. And those who think they know and have no interest in having a discussion, and those who simply cannot spell.

I’ve been reading the book: Thank You for Arguing, and it’s helping me to understand the differences, and how to argue without being mean. Still working on it, but now I’m trying.

[amazon.com]

Here here

Some people view a Trump supporter in much the same light as a Neo Nazi, or something else similarly disdainful. I doubt many would support the idea that it's unacceptable to bully or insult Neo Nazis; indeed, probably the opposite is true.

I would take it up with the bully or you can block them