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!
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.