Hacker News Reader

Comment by danaris | Hacker News Reader

There's a distinction someone articulated about "respect" a while back that has really stuck with me[0]: it means two different things in English, and we have a very bad tendency to conflate or confuse them.

It means both "to treat someone like an authority" and "to treat someone like a human".

Everyone deserves to be treated with the latter sort.

The former sort must be earned.

[0] The context in which I read it was about marginalized people getting the short end of the stick on both counts—privileged people, especially those who are relatively ignorant or for whom that privilege is all they have going for them, have a tendency to express sentiments along the lines of "I won't respect them if they don't respect me!" But what they mean is "I won't treat them like a human if they don't treat me like an authority."

View on HN

I’ve also seen this phrased as “respect” vs “courtesy”. Perhaps everyone would be better off if we used courtesy to mean the latter kind of respect.

As a person with a disability with more then 30 years of experience living independently, I have a hunch your quote is too long. "Priviledged" people (although I dont aproove of that term) on the ignorant side simply won't treat me like a human, no matter what I do in return. Even worse, those who claim they have some "experience with disabled people" are even worse. Their tiny bit of a glimpse of an idea propells them with such a dose of hybris that they won't treat you like a human either. Trust me, I know a lot about that version of "respect", being treated disrespectfully basically every day I leave the house and use public transport.

I mean many disabled people are foolish enough to think that understanding one instance of one disability gives them insight into all disabilities. That and they know that if they get into it with another disabled person, most everybody will stay out of it for fear of looking ignorant and foolish.

Sorry to be the one to break it to you but yes, it actually does give them insight into most disabilities. Its not like they know what its like to have them, but having one themselves makes it a lot easier to relate and empathise.

Oh yeah, show your ableism. I am sure you can tell me tons of things about my life I haven't understood yet. Thanks for being "the one to break it" to me. Me, being so totally uninvolved with the topic at hand, would have never see that coming.

Thanks for underlining my point.

> Thanks for being "the one to break it" to me.

They were addressing someone else. Any chance you shot your load over the wrong target there?

I think you're misunderstanding me. I was not referring to your post at all, but the one below it (before mine). With "insight" i did not mean absolute experience or knowledge about it, but a privy to what it might feel like because they're also experiencing a similar yet a lot different at times situation.

Part of the insight they learn is that disabilities are very different and you gain very minimal empathy into them.

You had me halfway but then swerved off road. Minimal empathy is still more than none. Like I said before its not like they know exactly 1:1 what other peoples lives are like.

What kinds of inhuman treatment do you receive, even from well meaning people with experience with disabled people?

Great illumination of the problem with the definition of respect.

I also was explained a definition of respect that forever changed my relationship to the word and it’s lived embodiment.

The Latin meaning of the word: Re-Spect - to see again. That’s it.

The second definition you gave- to treat someone like a human is way too low a bar. Because one might think that humans are generally POS. Also a person who has a problem with self-respect, does not lack seeing themselves as human per se.

If we elevate it a bit - from treating someone as human, to something like, treating someone with basic dignity, i think that’s an improvement. However it’s still basically passive and allows room for a lot of laziness and prejudice.

This is why i found the Latin meaning so helpful. Give that person a 2nd look. With each interaction try to see them again and again.

It’s much more active, it improves others in our eyes over time (usually, but not always). And I find it improves me over time, as i continue to remember to use my sight.

This definition helped me capture the more elevated aspect of respect, the one i felt the word already connotes, but had such a vague definition. A high virtue indeed.

I prefer the term "deference" for treating someone as an authority. But you're right; people do often say "respect" when they mean "deference".

along similar lines, I noticed that "authority" has two different meanings:

1. I don't care what you think is right or wrong; you need to do what I say

2. I don't care if you do what I say or not, but if you do not you will be doing the wrong thing

call them political and scientific authority for short. the other interesting thing is that religious authority tries to combine both forms into one.

Interesting the pointing out of religious authorities. All authorities blend these, so this distinction isn't really that clear.

A common example is a speed limit. It aught to be an engineered number, but can be determined politically. Regardless, the authority enforcement is the same regardless of the basis of the law.

It's more like there's two different basis for laws and only one body enforcing both laws, which makes it awkward.

taking your speed limit as a great example, the two kinds of authority would be "the speed limit in this here town is 60mph, if you break it you will be fined. I can say because I'm an authority sitting on the council" and "the speed limit on this road should be 70mph. if you set it to anything else you will be doing the wrong thing. I can say so because I'm an authority on the subject".

now looking at the religious case, a priest would say "this is what you need to do because the gods said so; I can enforce that because I'm an authority in the church, but also I am right because I'm an authority on what the gods want". so that combines both uses of the word into one person in the way that more secular authorities mostly do not.

The recent pandemic was a canonical example of the two forces coming together.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com