What then is the difference between disrespect and being accused of lying and "belonging to a certain ideology"?
"Lie" is a strong word, whoever calls another a liar must, after all, think that he himself possesses the truth. In the use of these very words of "lie" and "truth" themselves, I see an ideological spectrum.
How about avoiding these terms altogether?
Where I use this crutch for disagreeing with someone else's statement, I am virtually provoking the counter-question that I am not the one who has to justify a statement, but the one who calls me a liar is supposed to refute it. This very attack of calling me a liar is grist to my mill, because I easily can find something where the other one lied himself.
"You are lying" is not an argument. Then everyone will come and claim such and side with the truthful, while the others are of course put in the camp of the untruthful. An excellent vicious circle, brimming with ideology, I would say. I see it as the very foundation for censorship.
If I perceive someone as a liar and I feel obliged to tell him so, and I then find this is sufficient and the person so called shall admit it (turns his left cheek), then I must think that I am dealing with saints.
If I don't completely ignore my knowledge, I can rather expect the other person to react emotionally to it (angry, vindictive, insulted, offended, sad etc. etc.). Maybe my intent is to defeat them in this way that I non stop call them "liar!", in the hope that one day, they will be defeated (surrendering under shame and blame, for example). If you overpower them, they might surrender but inwardly they may still think they are right (and die with it).
Accusing someone of lying is not an opener for dialogue but a closer. As a result it opens up a fight not allowing any further arguments. To be willing to be defeated by argument, needs the will that this is allowed to happen in the first place.
How do you relate to "The moment I think that I am possessing the truth, I'll lose it, the moment I let doubt happen, I'll win it."?
"Lying" represents one of the christian sins and I feel it's as strong rooted in Westerners as ever.
In the history of Christianity, around 400 AD, there was a big argument between Augustine and a Celt called Pelagius. Pelagius was a British optimist who believed in muddling through, pitching in and pulling your weight. He held that one could fulfil God's commandments through one's own will and effort and argued that God would not have given us commandments if we could not obey them. Augustine, however, was of the opinion that Pelagius had thoroughly misunderstood this. If he had read Paul correctly, especially his letter to the Romans, he would have been able to conclude that God did not give us the commandments so that we might obey them, but rather to show us that we cannot. To speak with Paul: God gave us commandments that we cannot keep in order to lay sin upon us. In other words, the commandments were a gambit, an upaya. It was not really expected that a person could keep a commandment like the one in the Ten Commandments: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind." No one can do that.
The Buddhists have come to a similar conclusion. In its original form, the Buddha's teaching also appears to be strict. He said, "Listen, you need a discipline. Work and renounce women, alcohol and possessions. Start meditating and mastering your mind." Now everyone tried their hand at this, and most failed. Some succeeded, but afterwards they withered away. It turned out that they had won a Pyrrhic victory.
While I can agree with your definition of censorship, I would say in the very next breath that the stoic insistence on definitions and rules in and of themselves create problems where none need be. For the most part, conflicts are not about the correct statement, but about the relationships between the parties involved. Conflict is usually characterised by the fact that one does not so much uses questions as want to give a lesson or rock-solid answer.
Rather, I can choose to converse and get along with you instead of you having to agree with my stance or opinion.