On Respect and My Fellow Millennials

There seems to be a new trend in America's fledgling generation that defines respect as an unconditional recognition of their personal isolation. Respect is real only when it validates a self-established individuality. This sounds fine and dandy.

The demand seems to be hypocritically preceded by a hedonistic view of liberty. There is a growing entitlement to a sort of insulated space of peace for one's self (and thus, censorship from personally offensive material). Ideally, we would be able to live in a world where we celebrated each other's morals, but among the respect-entitled, this mindset only applies to the person demanding to it.

This follows a trend of contrarian attitudes that includes anti-war activists and religious puritans. They do not seek to share a world in which their perspectives of principle might conflict with someone else's.

Disharmony have been given hugely negative connotations--in spite of the fact that it is integral in accomplishing it's exact opposite. What worth is a reward that is earned without some punishment?

(Of course, that is an oversimplification, and negative affectation can, of course, be abused to gain power over others.)

But in reference to respect, we millennials seem to be missing something. In order to attain the individuality we recklessly seek, we need others to *contrast* ourselves against, instead of being shaped solely by the ambiguity of self-affirmation. Every subjective state is part of a spectrum. Peace is not possible without war, love is nothing without hate, and I would be lost if I didn't have others to be someone else to. Even if it is an enemy.

This necessity for other-minded people is neither addressed nor, in its own right, respected. Perhaps this is because so many young people feel marginalized by subcultures that have given a significant amount of resistance to stances on social issues they grew up feeling strongly about. None of the contrarian rhetoric they experienced had seemed constructive, much less respectful.

So, what reason do they have to give respect to opponents when, based on their experiences, they have received none?

I'm not surprised that millennials act as if they have been spoiled by ethics. I'm not surprised that they've equated contrary with offensive, and I'm not surprised that they require spaces exclusive to their like-minded peers, *away* from others who might disagree, instead of rising to the challenge of acknowledging and communing *with* them.

Respect is a tenuous balance.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

A followup: 

A point I have overlooked is that while there is a rash of people blindly demanding intellectual safety without regards to principle, there are exists a basic entitlement to a space free from adversarial opinions or even antagonistic rhetoric--that space is called the private home. Public spaces, however, are different: they are public. Public spaces should accommodate all not through censorship but through a vehicle with which individuals can respect, or at least tolerate each other's differences. This is not to say that efforts should not still be taken to stamp out bigotry and promote humanitarian thinking, but that we should be more forgiving of those who are still in need of education.