3 ms·

I was listening to a recent podcast interview of Ricky Gervais on this topic, where he observed “it’s not enough to apologize anymore and move on. People want b

by madrox 7y ago

I was listening to a recent podcast interview of Ricky Gervais on this topic, where he observed “it’s not enough to apologize anymore and move on. People want blood, people want you ruined, because it’s a point-scoring competition now.” [1] My only disagreement with Ricky is that I'm not sure it was ever enough, but the people for whom it isn't enough now have a platform. [1] https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/ricky-gervais-takes-on-verbal-terrorism-dont-apologize/ https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/ricky-gervais-takes-o... is a write-up of the podcast interview

watwut 7y ago
Should it be enough to apologize and move on? I would say that such apology is empty. There should be that part where people who were affected are made even as much as possible, where we reflect on what was supposed to be done differently and make changes for future. There was really no one who voiced disagreement at the time? If no, why? If yes, what did happened to their career and status in the organization? How were they argued again, how did the fight at the time went? Were they retaliated against at the time? All these things matter and should matter, so that next time people voice dissenting opinions in case like this and are listened to.
- doctor_eval 7y ago
  The apology includes a promise to raise an equivalent amount of money and to donate it to charities involved in trafficking.
- jaaron 7y ago
  The difference is between "wanting blood" and "restorative justice." In former, vengeance is a motivating force, potentially with little regard to making amends. Simply inflicting pain can be sufficient. In other, the goal is to compensate, restore and reform. This may or may not require inflicting great pain or ruining someone.
jmcqk6 7y ago
This is likely a reaction to the lack of accountability for those in power. For most of these things, the court of public opinion is the only available option left for any hint of accountability. The courts cannot be counted on for it. The legislature cannot be counted on for it. The way to fix this would be by introducing more accountability, but the national review would oppose such things as 'unneeded regulation'. The widespread feeling now is that if you are rich and powerful, you do not face the consequences for your actions. There are some pretty good reasons for feeling that way too. My hypothesis is that if we started increasing accountability, we would see a decrease to the type of behavior you're describing.
csb6 7y ago
This is frankly ridiculous. Conservatives at the National Review - of all people - should understand that consequences exist and should be meaningful. If Kevin Hart made homophobic comments in the fairly recent past, why should we assume he has changed? He never apologized on his own; in fact, he repeatedly refused to apologize until public pressure made it unavoidable. He almost certainly would never have taken back his comments if they were not brought to public attention by someone else. Not if he lived three lifetimes. This is why many people are not satisfied with a simple apology; it rings hollow because it is hollow and purely self-preserving. Life isn’t: “Press button here, apologize for bigotry, erase everyone’s memories.” The shit you say matters, whether 8 seconds or 8 years in the past, especially when such behavior was a regular part of Kevin Hart’s set for a long time, not an off-the-cuff comment. Many people knew that homophobia was a bad thing 8 years ago. Treating gay people with respect is not a new invention.

by madrox 7y ago

watwut 7y ago

Should it be enough to apologize and move on? I would say that such apology is empty. There should be that part where people who were affected are made even as much as possible, where we reflect on what was supposed to be done differently and make changes for future. There was really no one who voiced disagreement at the time? If no, why? If yes, what did happened to their career and status in the organization? How were they argued again, how did the fight at the time went? Were they retaliated against at the time? All these things matter and should matter, so that next time people voice dissenting opinions in case like this and are listened to.

doctor_eval 7y ago
The apology includes a promise to raise an equivalent amount of money and to donate it to charities involved in trafficking.
jaaron 7y ago
The difference is between "wanting blood" and "restorative justice." In former, vengeance is a motivating force, potentially with little regard to making amends. Simply inflicting pain can be sufficient. In other, the goal is to compensate, restore and reform. This may or may not require inflicting great pain or ruining someone.

jmcqk6 7y ago

This is likely a reaction to the lack of accountability for those in power. For most of these things, the court of public opinion is the only available option left for any hint of accountability. The courts cannot be counted on for it. The legislature cannot be counted on for it. The way to fix this would be by introducing more accountability, but the national review would oppose such things as 'unneeded regulation'. The widespread feeling now is that if you are rich and powerful, you do not face the consequences for your actions. There are some pretty good reasons for feeling that way too. My hypothesis is that if we started increasing accountability, we would see a decrease to the type of behavior you're describing.

csb6 7y ago

This is frankly ridiculous. Conservatives at the National Review - of all people - should understand that consequences exist and should be meaningful. If Kevin Hart made homophobic comments in the fairly recent past, why should we assume he has changed? He never apologized on his own; in fact, he repeatedly refused to apologize until public pressure made it unavoidable. He almost certainly would never have taken back his comments if they were not brought to public attention by someone else. Not if he lived three lifetimes. This is why many people are not satisfied with a simple apology; it rings hollow because it is hollow and purely self-preserving. Life isn’t: “Press button here, apologize for bigotry, erase everyone’s memories.” The shit you say matters, whether 8 seconds or 8 years in the past, especially when such behavior was a regular part of Kevin Hart’s set for a long time, not an off-the-cuff comment. Many people knew that homophobia was a bad thing 8 years ago. Treating gay people with respect is not a new invention.