LogFAQs > #974936009

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Arguably it's a difference in what definition of the word "respect" you're using. Some people may use the word to essentially mean "not being an a****** to someone", but that's not really what it's supposed to mean. Respect is "an attitude of consideration or high regard", "good opinion, honor, or admiration" or even "good will; favor". It's a state above and beyond just simple politeness. It's showing extra deference to someone based on their accomplishments or attitude. It's saying "this is someone worthy of praise".

The problem is that both definitions are used, often near-interchangeably. Even with the definitions you're giving, "good will" is something that I would say everyone should at least try to have for everyone else by default. Yes, assuming the best in people is very often a good way to end up disappointed by them, but on the whole the world around you will still be a better place if you default to treating everyone you meet better than "neutral," with the bare minimum courtesy that's needed to not get punched.

ParanoidObsessive posted...

Parents, teachers, and other authority figures who "demand respect" aren't asking to be treated like neutral strangers. They're asking to be treated with a higher degree of regard. They're essentially saying that their opinions and demands are worth more because they're in a higher position. "Do what I say, I'm your parent." "You should listen to me, I'm your teacher." But parents and teachers can be a******s too.

Even then, if there's no other information, I'm inclined to default to respecting that. As a concept, people are in positions of authority because they likely know better. That's not a guarantee, by any stretch of the imagination, but I'm not going to default to "nope, not gonna listen to you until you prove that you're worth listening to" when my doctor suggests that I get some bloodwork unless I have reason to believe that the bloodwork is pointless. Those that demand respect and fall back on "because I said so" when appropriately questioned, though, don't deserve to be respected, but that's a response to their failure as opposed to the default state.

Of course, that's probably a product of my upbringing. My parents made a point of encouraging us to question authority when it was appropriate to do so, but to not let that get in the way of listening to authority when that was more appropriate, and to default to listening if we weren't sure. They were, however, happy to discuss why they wanted me to do something after the fact, discussions that would sometimes result in them changing their minds and apologizing for not listening to me. And then as I got older and stopped being a stupid kid, the dynamic shifted and they stopped being authority figures, which helped solidify the idea that they were being reasonable with that approach and helped me draw appropriate boundaries for when I needed to listen to them (which doesn't mean I didn't respect them, since respect doesn't have to mean absolute deference).

In practice, I think we actually agree, you're just framing it with a slightly more misanthropic slant than I am, which is pretty much par for the course for both of us.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Yeah, it's going to vary case by case. People that are just plain abusive, who have responded poorly to multiple efforts to point out their abuse and how it's driving you away? That's on them, no sense wasting further effort, emotion, or health trying to bridge the gap.