4 ms·

On the other hand even with this resignation he doesn't appologize for anything. He could even have made his point of thinking it's a misunderstanding and appol

On the other hand even with this resignation he doesn't appologize for anything. He could even have made his point of thinking it's a misunderstanding and appologize, but didn't.

mc32 7y ago
Kevin Hart apologized for some offensive jokes, he apologized as advised by the academy, and still got cancelled. Apologizing only serves to augment the conviction of a mob intent on finding fault.
- GVIrish 7y ago
  No, initially he refused to apologize, then he withdrew from the hosting gig, then he actually apologized, more than once. Had he just apologized when the academy first brought up the issue, he could have gone right on with hosting. As it was, he pulled out of the deal because he didn't want to be a distraction.
- jigglesniggle 7y ago
  There was actually an article on HN recently about just this: executives who retained their position or high status (regardless of employer) despite "scandal" did not admit fault. Those that did never recovered.
  - mc32 7y ago
    Even from a law perspective many lawyers will advise against apologizing[1] to a victim because the apology can be used as evidence of guilt in a civil case. I think it works the same way for most situations including online mobs. —Adding this to expound on what DanBC writes. [1] Goes on to explain that this varies by jurisdiction and many have passed laws protecting apologizers. [1]https://accidentlawyerhenderson.com/is-saying-im-sorry-an-admission-of-guilt/ https://accidentlawyerhenderson.com/is-saying-im-sorry-an-ad...
    - DanBC 7y ago
      For any English people reading this in England: this advice is both wrong and harmful. If you've done something wrong you're allowed to apologise. You're not admitting liability and it doesn't open you up to further legal action. Not apologising may in fact increase damages against you. I don't know how other jurisdictions handle this. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/29/section/2 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/29/section/2 > Apologies, offers of treatment or other redress > An apology, an offer of treatment or other redress, shall not of itself amount to an admission of negligence or breach of statutory duty. This is especially true if you're a healthcare professional or work in a healthcare organisation. Your professional registration tells you to apologise; your organisations registration body tells them and you to apologise; your medical defence body tells you to apologise; a bunch of arms-length bodies are clear that you need to apologise if you do something wrong.
      - jigglesniggle 7y ago
        > If you've done something wrong you're allowed to apologise. mc32 wasn't saying an apology will increase damages, just that it is often seen as an admission of guilt. In some places (e.g. Canada) an apology is not a sign of guilt. But you seem to be saying something different?
- dfxm12 7y ago
  You say Kevin Hart "got cancelled", yet he's still working on a Jumanji sequel, another film called Fatherhood and has been in commercials since the Oscars. It seems like you're gravely overestimating how much power angry people on Twitter have.
  - thanatropism 7y ago
    Cancel culture may be running out of steam, but did Kevin Hart or whomever else know ex ante (meaning right after the scandal outbreak) what they were going to face. As it stands now outcomes vary wildly. Some people like Kevin Spacey were literally erased from movies that were already filmed; some others have just claimed back their place (maybe not their peak fame) on their own like Louis CK. And then there are neutral outcomes like the one you mention. And then there's Jussie Smollett who isn't a sex situation but was caught in, uh, something that's not a good look.
    - trenning 7y ago
      > And then there's Jussie Smollett who isn't a sex situation but was caught in, uh, something that's not a good look. He was caught framing innocent white men for hate crimes. He was going to send people to prison to boost his 'clout'. It's not just 'something'. It was a vile crime
      - thanatropism 7y ago
        (Sarcasm.)
  - dangerface 7y ago
    > You say Kevin Hart "got cancelled", yet he's still working on a Jumanji sequel > "got cancelled" > Jumanji sequel A part on the sequel to a reboot of a mediocre 90s movie? WOOO living the dream!
    - abenga 7y ago
      The reboot made 960 million dollars. You could argue about artistic merit of reboots and sequels, but he'll be getting a hefty paycheck for these.
- bas 7y ago
  Indeed. Those who apologize must submit to a struggle session.
dangerface 7y ago
"Headlines say that I defended Epstein," Stallman wrote. "Nothing could be further from the truth. I've called him a 'serial rapist,' and said he deserved to be imprisoned. But many people now believe I defended him — and other inaccurate claims — and feel a real hurt because of what they believe I said. I'm sorry for that hurt. I wish I could have prevented the misunderstanding." https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September_2019_(Statements_about_Epstein) https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September...
- eropple 7y ago
  That's a "I'm sorry you were offended" apology. Which is not an apology at all. Stallman decided it was a great idea to, in the wrong place at the wrong time and in response to a protest regarding someone he knew (Minsky, not Epstein), construct a hypothetical that exonerated Minsky and then judge that protest, again publicly, through that hypothetical. That's not a "believe he said" thing. That's what he did. He got tossed out on his ear for that and that's a thing he did.
  - lliamander 7y ago
    Just so you know, the central victim of this scandal did not (to my knowledge) actually accuse Minsky of having sex with her - only that she was coerced by Epstein to make the offer. An offer which another witness testified was turned down. If true then the protest against Minsky has no basis (or at least much less). Now, RMS then did construct a hypothetical based on his knowledge of Minsky's character. Note that nowhere in his hypothetical did he either defend Epstein or assert that the victim was in fact willing - both of which were things that he was accused of doing. He then insisted that people be more precise in their speech, which is exactly what you should do if you want actual justice.
- bluntfang 7y ago
  http://simon-mcav.blogspot.com/2016/05/im-sorry-you-feel-that-way-is-not.html http://simon-mcav.blogspot.com/2016/05/im-sorry-you-feel-tha... > When a person tells someone else "I'm sorry that you feel that way", they are not acknowledging the potential role they might have played in making them feel this way. Instead, it is more like they are absolving themselves of responsibility, and are showing apparent sympathy that the person who is complaining might be upset for some abstract, and potentially irrational reason. It not only fails to acknowledge the potential role played by the speaker (or who they might represent), but this phrase is actually used to position the speaker as an innocent actor who has had little or no influence over the current situation.
lostjohnny 7y ago
> but didn't. So he's being punished for thinking out loud and not apoligising for thinking out loud?
Chris2048 7y ago
It wasn't a misunderstanding caused by his poor wording; It was caused by poor (and possibly malicious) misquoting. He has nothing to apologise for in this respect, but he does say: > I'm sorry for that hurt. I wish I could have prevented the misunderstanding. This could be seen as an apology, "I'm sorry" often is; but in context you can see it is not. It is literally "I'm sorry I could not prevent this hurt" without any sense that He is responsible. Ironically, this sentiment only brought on more criticism: The claim that this was a "false apology", i.e. something masquerading as an apology despite not being one - but that was Stallmans intention, it is thwarted by all the other sentences in the same paragraph that make it clear he is being misquoted.

On the other hand even with this resignation he doesn't appologize for anything. He could even have made his point of thinking it's a misunderstanding and appologize, but didn't.

mc32 7y ago

Kevin Hart apologized for some offensive jokes, he apologized as advised by the academy, and still got cancelled. Apologizing only serves to augment the conviction of a mob intent on finding fault.

GVIrish 7y ago
No, initially he refused to apologize, then he withdrew from the hosting gig, then he actually apologized, more than once. Had he just apologized when the academy first brought up the issue, he could have gone right on with hosting. As it was, he pulled out of the deal because he didn't want to be a distraction.
jigglesniggle 7y ago
There was actually an article on HN recently about just this: executives who retained their position or high status (regardless of employer) despite "scandal" did not admit fault. Those that did never recovered.
- mc32 7y ago
  Even from a law perspective many lawyers will advise against apologizing[1] to a victim because the apology can be used as evidence of guilt in a civil case. I think it works the same way for most situations including online mobs. —Adding this to expound on what DanBC writes. [1] Goes on to explain that this varies by jurisdiction and many have passed laws protecting apologizers. [1]https://accidentlawyerhenderson.com/is-saying-im-sorry-an-admission-of-guilt/ https://accidentlawyerhenderson.com/is-saying-im-sorry-an-ad...
  - DanBC 7y ago
    For any English people reading this in England: this advice is both wrong and harmful. If you've done something wrong you're allowed to apologise. You're not admitting liability and it doesn't open you up to further legal action. Not apologising may in fact increase damages against you. I don't know how other jurisdictions handle this. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/29/section/2 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/29/section/2 > Apologies, offers of treatment or other redress > An apology, an offer of treatment or other redress, shall not of itself amount to an admission of negligence or breach of statutory duty. This is especially true if you're a healthcare professional or work in a healthcare organisation. Your professional registration tells you to apologise; your organisations registration body tells them and you to apologise; your medical defence body tells you to apologise; a bunch of arms-length bodies are clear that you need to apologise if you do something wrong.
    - jigglesniggle 7y ago
      > If you've done something wrong you're allowed to apologise. mc32 wasn't saying an apology will increase damages, just that it is often seen as an admission of guilt. In some places (e.g. Canada) an apology is not a sign of guilt. But you seem to be saying something different?
dfxm12 7y ago
You say Kevin Hart "got cancelled", yet he's still working on a Jumanji sequel, another film called Fatherhood and has been in commercials since the Oscars. It seems like you're gravely overestimating how much power angry people on Twitter have.
- thanatropism 7y ago
  Cancel culture may be running out of steam, but did Kevin Hart or whomever else know ex ante (meaning right after the scandal outbreak) what they were going to face. As it stands now outcomes vary wildly. Some people like Kevin Spacey were literally erased from movies that were already filmed; some others have just claimed back their place (maybe not their peak fame) on their own like Louis CK. And then there are neutral outcomes like the one you mention. And then there's Jussie Smollett who isn't a sex situation but was caught in, uh, something that's not a good look.
  - trenning 7y ago
    > And then there's Jussie Smollett who isn't a sex situation but was caught in, uh, something that's not a good look. He was caught framing innocent white men for hate crimes. He was going to send people to prison to boost his 'clout'. It's not just 'something'. It was a vile crime
    - thanatropism 7y ago
      (Sarcasm.)
- dangerface 7y ago
  > You say Kevin Hart "got cancelled", yet he's still working on a Jumanji sequel > "got cancelled" > Jumanji sequel A part on the sequel to a reboot of a mediocre 90s movie? WOOO living the dream!
  - abenga 7y ago
    The reboot made 960 million dollars. You could argue about artistic merit of reboots and sequels, but he'll be getting a hefty paycheck for these.
bas 7y ago
Indeed. Those who apologize must submit to a struggle session.

dangerface 7y ago

"Headlines say that I defended Epstein," Stallman wrote. "Nothing could be further from the truth. I've called him a 'serial rapist,' and said he deserved to be imprisoned. But many people now believe I defended him — and other inaccurate claims — and feel a real hurt because of what they believe I said. I'm sorry for that hurt. I wish I could have prevented the misunderstanding." https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September_2019_(Statements_about_Epstein) https://stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#14_September...

eropple 7y ago
That's a "I'm sorry you were offended" apology. Which is not an apology at all. Stallman decided it was a great idea to, in the wrong place at the wrong time and in response to a protest regarding someone he knew (Minsky, not Epstein), construct a hypothetical that exonerated Minsky and then judge that protest, again publicly, through that hypothetical. That's not a "believe he said" thing. That's what he did. He got tossed out on his ear for that and that's a thing he did.
- lliamander 7y ago
  Just so you know, the central victim of this scandal did not (to my knowledge) actually accuse Minsky of having sex with her - only that she was coerced by Epstein to make the offer. An offer which another witness testified was turned down. If true then the protest against Minsky has no basis (or at least much less). Now, RMS then did construct a hypothetical based on his knowledge of Minsky's character. Note that nowhere in his hypothetical did he either defend Epstein or assert that the victim was in fact willing - both of which were things that he was accused of doing. He then insisted that people be more precise in their speech, which is exactly what you should do if you want actual justice.
bluntfang 7y ago
http://simon-mcav.blogspot.com/2016/05/im-sorry-you-feel-that-way-is-not.html http://simon-mcav.blogspot.com/2016/05/im-sorry-you-feel-tha... > When a person tells someone else "I'm sorry that you feel that way", they are not acknowledging the potential role they might have played in making them feel this way. Instead, it is more like they are absolving themselves of responsibility, and are showing apparent sympathy that the person who is complaining might be upset for some abstract, and potentially irrational reason. It not only fails to acknowledge the potential role played by the speaker (or who they might represent), but this phrase is actually used to position the speaker as an innocent actor who has had little or no influence over the current situation.

lostjohnny 7y ago

> but didn't. So he's being punished for thinking out loud and not apoligising for thinking out loud?

Chris2048 7y ago

It wasn't a misunderstanding caused by his poor wording; It was caused by poor (and possibly malicious) misquoting. He has nothing to apologise for in this respect, but he does say: > I'm sorry for that hurt. I wish I could have prevented the misunderstanding. This could be seen as an apology, "I'm sorry" often is; but in context you can see it is not. It is literally "I'm sorry I could not prevent this hurt" without any sense that He is responsible. Ironically, this sentiment only brought on more criticism: The claim that this was a "false apology", i.e. something masquerading as an apology despite not being one - but that was Stallmans intention, it is thwarted by all the other sentences in the same paragraph that make it clear he is being misquoted.