The philosophical architects of liberalism made an exception for savages, people too backwards to appreciate liberty. Socialism made exceptions for the bourgeois, people too attached to their ownership of the means of production to be beyond saving. Conservatism is built upon the idea that some people are better than others.
There’s always an exception. And somehow, that exception always becomes the norm, we enter into a state of exception. There’s savages everywhere! The bourgeois control everything! Equality! It’s time to kill people.
In no uncertain terms, fuck that no. If people believe asinine things, they (as a person, not as a holder of asinine beliefs) should be respected nonetheless. Classic Aristotle quote:
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it
Refusing to entertain, "respect’, or consider beliefs that you think are astoundingly stupid and wrong is basically an internal admission of being intellectually weak or a coward. Take your pick. Differences in how people see the world exist and that doesn’t automatically preclude collaboration and cooperation. In fact, it makes finding the best path to some goal far less likely to end in ruin.
From here:
If we’re going to engage in the deliberative model, we’d have to begin by rejecting that notion that only our position is legitimate; we’d have to value the inclusion of diverse points of view. The deliberative model says that we should take on the extraordinarily difficult task of arguing together, looking for policies that make everyone at least a little unhappy, but that are in the long-term best interest of everyone, or, at the very least, the long-term better interest of everyone.
That is, it’s in our collective best interest to respect everyone without exception. I suppose it’s hard if you’re just intellectual weak, but don’t choose to be a coward. Respect other people.
And if you’re like, “Well, what about the interests of Nazis?!”, then read the second sentence of the title. But if you think that means appeasing them, then read the article linked by the word ‘here’ above.
Edit: This was a really useful exercise. Thanks, y’all!
I disagree, this is the paradox of tolerance writ large.
On a personal level the default respect is only for the first few encounters.
If the person constantly violates societal norms and does not respect others in return, they do not deserve respect.
Refusing to entertain, "respect’, or consider beliefs that you think are astoundingly stupid and wrong
This is quite simplistic, you are also judging the beliefs of others yourself and deciding what they are allowed to believe.
Yes, any person is allowed to hold any beliefs and worship (or not) any god they wish. So long as they understand the only person they can expect to be held by and follow those belief is themselves.
Your right to belief stops at you and you alone.
This is not the paradox of tolerance. That’s why I suggested reading the article linked by the word ‘here’.
The paradox of tolerance only can only happen in an environment where one side routinely abuses the rule of engagement and gets away with it. A paradoxically tolerant person would be like, “Well…you’re entitled to your opinion that I’m inferior to you because of my skin color, and people less than you should put into concentration camps for our safety…but I disagree.”
The article above denied this had to be the case. If someone believes that I’m sub-human because of my skin color and makes that argument, then it’s perfectly reasonable for me to believe the same of them for the same reason. I don’t actually have to believe this, mind you, but I can argue for policies I want on that basis. So, if someone wants to put me in concentration camps because of my skin color, then I can reasonably argue, on the merits of the stupid argument, that they, too, should be placed in concentration camps to ensure their safety from the riffraff.
As you can see, if people argue for things for stupid reasons, then a lot of stupid things open up. The paradox of tolerance assumes one person is exceptionally aggressive in their stupidity (i.e., intolerant) and the other refrains for some reason.
Fuck that. If someone argues for bad things to happen to other people for bad reasons (racism, xenophobia, homophobia, etc), then it’s perfectly reasonable for somebody else to argue that bad things happen to them for those same reasons.
Your comment refutes the main premise of your post.
Refusing to entertain, "respect’, or consider beliefs that you think are astoundingly stupid and wrong is basically an internal admission of being intellectually weak or a coward.
If someone argues for bad things to happen to other people for bad reasons (racism, xenophobia, homophobia, etc), then it’s perfectly reasonable for somebody else to argue that bad things happen to them for those same reasons.
At this point I have no idea what you are trying to say.
I don’t understand how you understand my comment and how it refutes the main premise of my post…
For my original post, respect means accepting the beliefs of people at face value.
If someone claims to believe in God, then…why would you argue they shouldn’t? Who cares that they do? Or if they claim to believe in UFOs and the rapture is coming Friday, October 13, 2061 at Point Nemo at 0600, then…okay.
I’m not saying you have to listen to them spout bullshit. Nor am I saying you have to engage with them if you have the option of disengaging. I’m just saying, people’s beliefs are their own, and there’s an infinite amount of reasons to believe any one thing. And people believe a lot of things!
Where does responding in kind to anti-intellectual beliefs come in? The relationship between evangelicals and The Church of Satan is illustrative. Evangelicals insist on having the Ten Commandments in public spaces like courts and school, violating the separation of church and state. They call this religious freedom and use otherwise universal rhetoric to argue that Christianity should be visible everywhere. The Church of Satan takes the evangelical belief in god seriously. Satanists “respect” evangelical beliefs, in the sense of my post. If evangelicals sincerely believe in god, and the courts agree that they should have public representation, then great! But so should other beliefs, like those of the Church of Satan. And then, as if they’re staged Marionette dolls, evangelicals reveal that religious freedom is really about special privilege for their fucked up version of Christianity.
Ultimately, respect is about getting shit done by just believing what others tell you about themselves. If they believe themselves to deserve some special privilege for some reason, then you’re entitled to the same privilege for that very same reason. And if that’s contradictory…well…that’s kind the point.
That is, it’s in our collective best interest to respect everyone without exception. I suppose it’s hard if you’re just intellectual weak, but don’t choose to be a coward.
Whenever I see someone making the claim that we should respect everyone, it rarely takes much deep diving to find them being disrespectful. It is rare, however, to find that disrespect in the very post where they’re calling for everybody to be respectful.
So kudos, dude. You undermined your own high ideals while expressing them. Fuckin’-A man.
It’s like the words of Jesus himself, “Be nice to everyone, you fuckin jerks”
If you check, he’s a mod for a conservative lemmy. Exactly what I’ve come to expect from the regressive right.
deleted by creator
No, OP is right. You should respect the people who think you’re subhuman. It’s the only way … to be treated as subhuman, packed into train cars to be exterminated as subhuman and, you know, all the other good things that go along with respecting the people who want you dead.
OP is on to something.
/s ← it’s sad that this is needed, but hey, it’s the InnarWebTubes
Thing is… you won’t convince that the other fella is wrong by telling him to lick your asscheeks. You are just being offensive.
Even if it means saying a fact straight to that fella and receiving a simple “LMAO” back – guess what? You already won. His “LOL” was pretty much a signature under “Me, a fellow random, admit that I just got told by this guy.”
deleted by creator
Sure, and then there’s Daryl Davis.
When a Klansman walks into a room, his wall is up. I’m trying to bring that wall down. I’ve been to 57 countries on six continents. But no matter how far I’ve gone, I’ve observed the same thing: we human beings all want the same things. We want to be respected. We want to be loved. We want to be heard. And we want the same thing for our families as everybody else wants for their families.
Everyone deserves the chance to be respected but if you extend respect to everyone no matter what that is harmful
I’ll go a step farther. Respect should be the default stance when meeting someone.
But …
If someone shows disrespect from the get-go (and that includes wearing Nazi paraphernalia or other such hate symbols), fuck 'em in the ear with a rusty, spiked dildo.
What you said is exactly what I meant you just said it smarter
Courtesy should always be given. Respect and trust are earned.
I’m not going to be courteous with people who are screaming for my wife’s and son’s blood. Sorry. I’m sure that makes me a bad person, but someone doing that isn’t going to get courtesy from me. They’re going to get … let’s call it “extreme discourtesy” and leave it at that.
I’m not sure who you’re arguing with. I was trying to make sure people aren’t handing out respect and trust willy nilly.
I guess I need to clarify that you give courtesy until and unless someone gives you an obvious reason not to. I thought that would be assumed and understood, guess that’s on me.
What if they’re phlebotomists?
They don’t tend to scream for blood. Just ask.
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge’.”
—Isaac Asimov, “A Cult of Ignorance”, Newsweek (1980-01-21)
You can go on respecting Nazis.
I’ll go on respecting Nazis with a baseball bat.
You’ve got to respect everyone, yes – and point out the wrongs in the other person’s opinion. Because if you just respect… then you are (also) being heedless.
Yes, but pointing out the wrongs is only logically and/or rhetorically effective when done in a certain way. American political polarization basically has us saying “You’re wrong because you’re not X”, when that’s a shitty argument all around. Being conservative or democrat isn’t itself an indicator of the validity of any argument.
Pointing out the wrongs by identifying their premises and conclusions and arguing about those things is being respectful. That is what I mean by respect, which is obviously unclear, or so I’ve learned in this thread. Focusing on the argument is respectful. Because even white supremacists know that capitalism fucking sucks and hate on rich people. Their proposed solution is a shitty alternative, and that’s where they’re wrong. But if you start with they’re a white supremacists, therefore they’re wrong because all white supremacists are wrong, then that’s shitty.
People who openly spew hate speech deserve no respect. No exceptions.
I do not respect seditionists or the people that support them, and if you do then you are my enemy too.
Yes
