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!
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.
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.