Respect is nuanced as well. There are limits and, let's call it stages, to respect as well. Depends upon the specifics of what you're talking about.

If you're talking about basic human respect, then yes. General markers of social civility. Yes.

That said, let's look at some dynamics. We all know trolls exist. They are incapable of even respecting themselves. Why would anyone think they'll show you any modicum of respect?

Respect implies a basic level of caring or feeling connected to someone. Trolls are more interested in their purpose of being disruptive than they do about your feelings. It's up to you whether or not you want to show them any respect when they act abusive toward you.

Simon chooses not to block. Simon chooses to be provocative and, dare I say, reckless in some ways. Simon chooses to expose himself.

Look. Anyone who puts anything out on the internet is going to get some hate and blowback. Not just from trolls, but from the limiting nature of the internet, social media, and the written word as a content creation. Why does Simon think he shoud be exempt from what we ALL have to deal with without having to do any extra work like the rest of US have to just because he has some funny notions about respect and civility?

Simon is not without agency here.

And that's not even touching on the aspect of him perceiving disrespect is his opinion. It doesn't always follow that there actually was a disrespect.

I can tell you for a fact that there have been a few times that simply wasn't the case.

I'm saying it's a fact and not just my opinion based on the fact that he misinterpreted and misreported what was actually said in comment exchanges.

It basically comes down to Simon has a distaste for passionate and strong language. That's his choice and his right. That's an apples vs oranges level of respect.

But the apple lover then doesn't get to falsely claim they are being disrespected when the orange lover shares their opinion in return, you know? Especially when the orange lover is just being passionate, articulating a cumturakky specific way to them, or even being strident as is their nature. Some people talk with their hands. Doing so is not disrespectful to the soft spoken person just because maybe it makes them comfortable. Right?

What that is, is tone policing. It's been pointed out to him that he has a tendency to tone police by multiple people, independent of each other, on independent and unrelated articles, comment exchanges, and incidents.

This article, once again he's talking in absolutes without specifics. This is about his feelings of comfort, not the realities and nuances of respect or the natural limits of respect and opinions. I can tell you again for a fact that some of the things he alluded to in the article did not happen as his interpretation of events. Obviously, I can't be certain as to which events he's specifically referring to. I just know there's some that broadly apply and that's not what happened. He wasn't being disrespected any more than he was being disrespectful himself.

Feelings are not facts.

And look at it from the other person's perspective. Someone who habitually insists on ooh la la manners of high civility and decorum before they will consider what is being said is going to be perceived as an elitist snob who cares more about social performance than they do about people living and struggling under widely held ideas like racism and sexism that make their lives unnecessarily harder. For someone who wants to be considered as an ally to those opposing those systems of belief, it seems like an odd thing to prioritize, don't you think? Seems like you care more about the feelings of those who have demonstrated time and time again that they either believe in those systems or are willing to make money off them than you do the thoughts and feelings of the opposers of those systems, don't you think? Kind of makes you think you don't understand the nature of respect enough in the first place to be making accusations of who's respectful and who's not, don't you think?

My dad taught me that respect is earned. You're not owed it or guaranteed it just because you think you deserve it or you gave it of your own free will. Respect is earned over time and trust. You gain it by proving that you can be trusted over and over again over time.

What Simon is referring to as respect is actually what Dad called performative politeness. You can perform politeness all day long and still the sort of person who should never be trusted farther than you can throw them. Part of that, is because you lack real respect.

And that's because they're not really the same thing. Conflating the two is common, we all do to some degree. But doing so diminishes the importance and value of real respect. That's my opinion, btw. You can respect it or not, that's on you.