Neither of those are the actual definition of the word. I’ve always interpreted it to acknowledge a person’s abilities/capabilities. The big conflict of respect at my workplace seems to be older people who have worked there for 17 years not being respectful of people writing there for 8 years. They think they are the authority figure and deserve that kind of respect (as mentioned here) and treat people who have been there several years like they don’t deserve the respect to make any decisions. Which is nonsense, and they are just making more work for everyone by disrupting workflow in order to prove some level of superiority.
It sounds like the post fits fairly well to your workplace, but at any rate I think the important part is that “respect” means different for different people and the core idea that some think there’s a difference incoming vs outgoing is problematic.
The whole core of “treat others as you wish to be treated” is this. It’s not about actions, it’s about intentions. It should be “treat others with the respect and consideration you wish for them to give to you”
I’ve tried replacing “respect” with “dignity” in situations like this. I definitely don’t think everyone deserves to be respected, but dignity can be afforded.
I’m assuming by “authority” this means police, judges, etc, rather than health etc
I think part of dealing with professionals should be treating the position they’re in with respect, especially in regards to the situation you may be dealing with. That said, they should also be acting within the bounds of their authority and with the dignity and professionalism of whatever position.
To me, this means that I follow professional advice with some gravitas - including that of doctors or medical “authorities” in their field - because their knowledge will typically exceed my own.
For police or judges, that means I respect them when they’re acting in a professional manner within the bounds of their authority, and also respecting that a situation where I interact with them under such probably requires some seriousness. Not bowing or scraping, but also not cussing them out, provoking, etc.
If I get lit up by a patrol car, I’ll safely pull over and see what’s up. If it’s a ticket and I don’t accept the reason for it, then I’ll file a dispute. If I attend court, I’ll be professional. If my doctor recommends an important medical procedure, I’ll listen and give their words weight.
This obviously doesn’t mean I need to accept if these people should abuse their authority, i.e. by giving out frivolous tickets/charges or prescribing unnecessary medication, there are appropriate ways to respond to those.
You ultimately decide on the procedure/medication. You can challenge a ticket. You can refuse to answer the questions of a police officer. You can request/hire legal council. You can challenge a decision at a higher court. Etc
But frankly I see a lot of people who end themselves up in shit by behaving in a … less than appropriate manner. They’re still people, but acting like a reckless, combative, and/or arrogant idiot isn’t going to improve the situation in any way, and there seems to be a growing trend where cameras are not only catching more bad behaviour by “the authorities” but also by people who seem to think that having one makes them some sort of Tiktok movie star immune to the consequences of their actions. This includes SovCit types who want all the perks of a civilized society but reject the “authority” behind laws and legal obligations.
Wel, if it helps, it was apparently originally said by a neurodivergent child. This person is just passing it off as their own. So while you or I may not be able to articulate things this well…at least we don’t steal ideas from kids and pass them off as our own?
Add comment