Eoulapa (murmuring): "Respect is crucial, but so is free speech... Hm, it's an extremely contentious item, and it involves profound and in-depth philosophical and historical debate. Maybe I should abstain from this before I develop a more mature world-view... Actually, since I have been reading books on liberty, rationality, and respect, I could try discussing this with Aufisü. Let me text him..."
Eoulapa: "Hey, lately I've been thinking whether free speech or respect should be prioritised - it depends mostly on the circumstances of course, but in general, which approach do you think is most appropriate?"
It was 11 in the evening, but Aufisü texted back in minutes: "I find your question kind of vague. I guess you should put forth your stance first, then I'll follow."
Eoulapa: "I think free speech outweighs respect. Don't get me wrong - respect is critical, and we should discuss that later, after we get this settled. Anyway, as you know, I've been regularly reading liberal political theory by Rawls and Fukuyama, and according to Rawls, an ideal society must be based on a collective understanding of societal cooperation. He believed that society is 'a cooperative venture for mutual advantage', and thus members of society must accept a 'principle of social justice' concurrently to make way for a 'well-ordered society'. Therefore, respect is essential to the functioning of society."
Aufisü: "Ok."
Eoulapa: "However, the point I want to get across is that, deriving from society being 'a cooperative venture for mutual advantage', all quarrels are to be solved while treating citizens as free and equal human beings, so all stakeholders' interests are weighed as impartially as possible. With that in mind, we know that discourse should be attempted before forceful implementation. If this is applied to the free speech-respect debate, education and rational discourse are of higher priority than possibly stringent regulations, i.e. institutions and governments should educate and deal with the uncivilised few."
Aufisü: "Alright. Now, we all agree that disrespectful language poses harm. Like how guns are banned for possible complications, disrespectful language should also be banned. Although free speech is imperative for societal cooperation, as it fosters communication and understanding, excessive and malicious language can derail cooperation and instead bring about polarisation, something you and I both despise. Hence, respect might not always trail behind free speech. In fact, I think they are equally important."
Eoulapa: "Well of course they are both paramount on many occasions, but how do you define 'disrespectful language'? Insults vary with the identity of the receiver - something Fukuyama brought up in his book Identity. According to him, humans 'crave positive judgments about their worth or dignity' due to thymos, in addition to 'things that are external to themselves', like food and supercars. He mentioned how civil unions being the resolution to the gay marriage movement did not satisfy homosexual couples, for civil unions are seen as inferior to marriage. They wanted their political systems to 'explicitly recognise the equal dignity of gays and lesbians'. While a heterosexual might find the solution fine, certain homosexuals find it unacceptable, proving that 'disrespect' is subjective. given this, guns and 'disrespectful language' should not be compared, as guns contribute to concrete, measurable harm such as casualties, while 'disrespectful language' impacts specific groups unquantifiably. I agree that we must strike a balance between regulating language and free speech, but as I said, it depends on the circumstances. In the US, guns are sometimes considered acceptable for hunting purposes. In contrast, guns have no use for citizens in Hong Kong. That is why gun usage is still contentious in the US, while Hong Kong people almost unanimously object to gun usage. For US rural citizens, guns pose certain pros (certainly with certain cons as well); for Hong Kong citizens, guns pose virtually no good. We thereby see that the 'appropriacy' of guns can be measured by considering drawbacks and benefits. However, that is not easily done for language. As societies become more diversified, which is now a global trend, ruling out all possibly derogative vocabulary is difficult. Moreover, doing so may thwart discourse, as certain people may misinterpret stern advice as insults. Regardless, deliberately derogative language must be forbidden for the sake of societal cooperation."
Aufisü: "Actually, like you, I have kind of dabbled in Fukuyama's theory, and I like how he expounded on identity politics. So, I understand your point - first educate, then regulate (those insisting on clearly derogative language, not understanding societal cooperation). I guess that to some extent prevents polarisation due to simultaneously upholding thymos and respect and promoting open and extensive communication. By accommodating the more 'conservative' views of the right and accepting the more 'liberal' views of the left, and by asserting the importance of common ground, we can minimise polarisation and hatred."
Eoulapa: "Oh yes, speaking of 'conservatives', those against vaccines, a majority of which identify as 'conservatives', opt for more extreme values like nationalism and far-right ideologies, as they deem vaccine requirements stringent and forceful. In Fukuyama's words, these people felt 'suppressed', and they will thence 'demand recognition of dignity', sometimes even 'in restrictive ways' that are 'not for all human beings, but for members of a particular [...] group'. Similarly, if people find regulations severe, they would not so much adhere to them as resent them. Consequently, though apt regulation is necessary, it must be implemented gradually and with equal regard to the opinions of the public, so as to defend free speech and reap its fruits. Even if respect is put at stake due to misinterpretation or the uncivilised few, with education and free speech, we can advocate values like respect."
Aufisü: "Alright, before I go to sleep for the exam tomorrow, tell me why you suddenly wanted to discuss this?"
Eoulapa: "I was watching a video on Minecraft chatroom rules. The creator found them inimical while affirming the significance of respect, so I was motivated to chat with you about it."
Aufisü: "Okok. Good night."
Eoulapa: "Bye."
~Written 1/11/23 23:35 at home.