How about being naked? 
1 Like
That would bring new meaning to the phrase âthe truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truthâ.
2 Likes
Exactly! 
Call it ârespectâ or âcivilityâ (which I would define as the base level of respect that you would accord another person even without having had any interactions that would warrant a greater degree of accorded respect), itâs not really a red herring. Society functions because thereâs a base contract that most people (but apparently not you) follow that people in general and some institutions are granted some degree of respect. Youâre arguing semantics now (and apparently so am I), so Iâm out.
1 Like
Assuming other individuals (and their places of power) are worthy of respect (until thoroughly proven otherwise) is a pretty good policy.
I often wonder why people think arguing semantics is the end of a discussion but I have noticed that it usually happens when someone pulls a new meaning for a word straight out of their ass. There is a very good reason why we have all of these different words with different meanings.
Civility: formal politeness and courtesy in behavior or speech.
Thatâs some nifty mental gymnastics you do there. You accuse me of not following some social contract while insulting me. The lack of self awareness and irony is crafty indeed. In any case, you are again using a super-secret-kids-club definition of respect to make your point seem valid.
We use the word civility and not respect to describe the way we should interact in a civilization (gee, I wonder if the two words are related). That bandying about with the word respect seems like the kind of mental arm twisting an authoritarian mind would employ. It smells of the people who run around insisting that everyone respect them.
Weâre all running around saying âDude, chill, this personâs coolâ but YOU are alone in demanding to stick your finger in the hole in their side instead of taking our word for it.
Itâs not just arbitrary people you refuse to respect â itâs anybody you have not personally vetted according to your own secret-kids-club definition. Which is essentially giving the rest of us the finger and saying âsociety, I trust you not.â
Thatâs cool. But just donât expect us to respect you for it.
2 Likes
I really have no idea to whom or what you are referring.
Quite right. I show respect to no one who has not earned my respect. I expect no one to respect me. I do try to act civilly towards everyone I encounter and I expect the same. However, rather than using super-secret-kids-club definitions I use the ones found in the dictionary. Perhaps you could look up the words respect and civility. I strongly believe that misunderstanding is the root of most conflict. As such, Iâm kind of a stickler for using words as they are defined rather than altering them to fit your worldview and position. We have enough âchangedâ definitions from our government. We know they are bullshit and call them on it. BoingBoing has many articles on how the government uses secret definitions of things to justify its actions yet if we apply the same standard to posters on BoingBoing, a few kids in the peanut gallery such as yourself go all gamergate on whoever does so. Most posters simply keep quiet and let them do it. Iâm not one of them. Maybe itâs my lack of respect that does it.
The primary reason I think it matters however, is because while I can support a legally enforced level of civility in a courtroom, I cannot support respect of a court being enforced by removing a persons freedom at gunpoint. Thatâs why understanding the difference between the two is important to me. The contempt of court charge is a left over from common law that needs to go. It has no place in a free society. So, perhaps you can understand why I think we need to use the correct words. In this case, the difference between the two get people put in jail.
Which one?
Iâm more of an OED kinda guy â where words are not defined as having a singular meaning, so much they are by usage, which is nebulous and multifarious. Words arenât concrete immutable ideas so much as â and I think weâve heard something like this before â a socially-agreed upon contract. Instead of verifying the meaning of each word in advance with each person we talk to, we hold the general assumption that the meanings are roughly the same, and only back down from that assumption if there is evidence to the contrary.
Yes, because arguing with someone who exhibits strong anti-social tendencies is the same as stalking and harassing women. You sure got my number.
####notalldictionaries
1 Like
Hilarious! By pointing out that respect is in no way synonymous with civility, I am outed as having strong anti-social tendencies. Good analyses. Or, perhaps you are continuing to devolve to that of ad-hominem attack due to your weak position.
Perfect, then use the any of the OED definitions instead of conflating the two words
The ones from the OED that fit the conversation at hand are:
Respect
a. With adverb or adverbial phrase: to value or esteem (highly, poorly, etc.). Obs.
b. In favourable sense: to treat or regard with deference, esteem, or honour; to feel or show respect for.
c. To prize or value (an object). Obs.
d. To toast; to drink the health of. Obs. rare.
e. To uphold, maintain, refrain from violating (a right, privilege, law, decision, etc.). Also: to refrain from harassing or obstructing (a person); to treat with consideration in regard to a particular course of action, function, etc.
Civility
a. Behaviour or speech appropriate to civil interactions; politeness, courtesy, consideration. In later use freq. with negative overtones: the minimum degree of courtesy required in a social situation; absence of rudeness. Also in to show (also â do) civility .
b. Usu. in pl. An act or expression appropriate to civilized behaviour; esp. an act or expression of politeness, a courtesy. Also in later use: an act or expression demonstrating a minimum degree of courtesy.
Perhaps you should ask yourself, why âformal politeness and courtesy in behavior or speechâ, and you would understand the pointâŚ
And again, perhaps itâs my âauthoritarian mindâ or perhaps my membership in the âsuper-secret-kids-clubâ or my âlack or self awareness and ironyâ or perhaps even my ânifty mental gymnasticsâ that makes me willing to insult you by not being willing to argue down to the tiniest quantum why civility, even under your definition, is synonymous to some degree with the word ârespectâ. Otherwise why act polite and courteous to someone who is a stranger? Fear of untoward consequences? No, you do it because there is a base level of respect that we have agreed to accord others, and civil behavior towards them is the output of that social contract.
So, if you want to be really pedantic (and this is BB after all, so why not), you could effectively argue that civility isnât exactly respect on the basis that civility is the behavior pattern that arises out of the latter.
I suspect that your apparent approach to life (I donât respect anyone, and expect nobody to respect me) is a somewhat self fulfilling prophecy. If youâre not willing to grant strangers, the very people who have not yet had a chance to prove themselves to you, some minor degree of respect, then why would anyone return the favor? Contracts, even social ones, only work when both sides uphold their end of the agreement.
And as such, you show up to court in PJâs expecting respect, and to be taken seriously, and itâs not going to happen. Iâm not saying that you shouldnât be free to make that choice, but itâs not a very wise one.
Mod note: Stay on topic
1 Like
I might argue that civility is more synonymous with acting with respect, reserving the possibility of having a complete lack of respect but having the common-sense not to show it.
So, to sum up â showing up in court wearing pajamas is uncivil, because it shows a complete lack of respect for something that âweâ, as society, have delegated a certain amount of authority to, so we can pursue other matters, such as earning enough money to never be able to afford a wallet on our own and be stuck with keeping the money in our underdrawers.
####plusitslikesoooootacky
1 Like
Yup. I perhaps draw too much affinity between two closely related and inseparable, but honestly separate things. If part of the definition of civility involves ârespectâ in my mind, itâs hard to separate the acts from the motives.
And the money from undergarments things, Iâve mainly seen in it private businesses in warm areas. (because nobody wants soggy cash covered in someone elseâs sweat). I donât think itâs so much a âcanât afford a walletâ thing as much as it is convenience and security in impoverished areas (because wallets can be had at the $0.99 store). If youâre not obviously carrying a fat wallet, then nobody can steal it.
I was referring to my earlier hyperbole, where I jocularly declared that only 1-percenters could afford wallets [well, I tried to be jocular; at least one person took me seriously. #notalljokes].
Does swim-suit money at the pool fall into the same category? If it does, why do they have to little mesh pockets anyway? And where else would I keep my quarters?
Â
Â
I know, I know â swim-suit money at the pool falls into the drains.
In the question at hand, the judge is wanting people to dress a certain way in order to have a constitutionally guaranteed day in court. He can do this through enforcing the common law practice of charging those who donât respect his wishes with contempt of court. I strongly question the idea that respect can be mandated by law - despite claims by others that we should show respect to institutions because they are being run by people who deserve our respect. I feel these people deserve civility but that respect is taking it too far.
Some people here think that civility and respect are inexorably linked but that simply isnât the case. For example, few people respect members of the KKK. However, we do act civilly with them in our day to day lives because living in a society requires an agreed upon minimum degree of courtesy in a social situation or simply absence of rudeness. Judge Haskell however seems to think he can demand more than civility from people he encounters as a public functionary and wants people to pay respect by altering their preferred mode of dress simply due to his position as a Judge.
There are those who think if one does not automatically respect others they encounter, then one is uncivil and perhaps anti social.By projecting their own bias and misunderstand upon those who believe that respect is never a thing given but rather owned, they devalue the very idea of respect and difference owed those who have earn it.
To the man who helped my mother carry groceries when he didnât have to - respect
To the paid bagger - civility
To the people who gave up their time to read to the children at the library - respect
To the paid librarian - civility
To the people who work as government functionaries - civility (with respect being held back until I can see how they treat others).
1 Like
Yeah, sorry, forgot the 1% joke.
But I donât think the money thing is as much about hydration as it is what the money is soaked with. Bra dollars in say an Atlanta summer can be pretty nasty.
Wow, really? I get the point about the idea of âcontempt of courtâ being inherently ridiculous, but the rest?
I do grant respect, not just baseline civility, to paid librarians who spend their time entertaining and educating children. They have chosen a life path that is not financially very rewarding, and provide a valuable social function.
I grant respect not just civility to teachers, who, while paid, have also entered an undervalued profession by choice, and often make sacrifices for the good of their students.
Similarly, doctors, folks with post-graduate degrees, martial arts teachers, etc⌠until they prove themselves unworthy of respect. In my mind, these people, until proven otherwise, have already shown through their choice of career or their accomplishments (academic or otherwise) they are worthy of a greater degree of respect than just the absolute minimum level of civility that allows society to function smoothly. The simple fact that you are paid for something doesnât automatically negate any good will that the person may have had in entering the field.
In my mind, respect comes in degrees (which is why that I argue that civil behavior is a minor degree of automatically granted respect). I would also respect someone who helped an elderly person carry groceries, but not to the same degree as the person who runs into a house to save someone elseâs kid (at great risk to themselves). But, perhaps I am the anomaly, and you are completely correct. I also think that life in general should be respected, whether it be human, animal, or even vegetal (to varying degrees of course).
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
