4 ms·

The number of people in this thread arguing that apologies can only make things worse is shocking. Are these the same people who reject addressing war crimes wi

The number of people in this thread arguing that apologies can only make things worse is shocking. Are these the same people who reject addressing war crimes with truth and reconciliation, and instead advocate "deny everything, make counteraccusations"? A proper apology—one that (1) acknowledges the specific harm caused, (2) acknowledges responsibility and remorse for specific choices, (3) explains how they hope to make amends specifically to the aggrieved party—seems to me to be self-evidently the only possible way to heal a community. Doubtless many people have delivered "apologies" that omitted one of those elements, or even all 3 elements ("I apologize if anyone felt offended"), and thereby made things worse for themselves. But to me it is self-evidently corrosive to a community and to a person's ego to adopt a practice of refusing to acknowledge mistakes. For an example of the good that can come from a proper apology for a serious harm, consider Dan Harmon's apology to Megan Ganz: https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/1/11/16879702/dan-harmon-apology-megan-ganz-community https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/1/11/16879702/dan-harmon-ap...

justatdotin 6y ago
IMO 'truth and reconciliation' should just focus on 'truth'. We don't owe war criminals reconciliation, but they owe us the truth.
- laughinghan 6y ago
  To clarify, the important thing about "reconciliation" is not about reconciling with war criminals, but about reconciling with supporters of war criminals, which are usually a pretty significant portion (sometimes the overwhelming majority) of the civilian population of the region or community that the war criminal is from. Often, those supporters have been on the receiving end of pretty serious hardships themselves. That doesn't justify supporting war crimes, of course, but if you don't acknowledge those hardships, you create resentment and the seeds of future strife, rather than healing.
  - justatdotin 6y ago
    fair call, I know how that applies to collaborators from within targeted communities, but I've also seen it wrongfully directed towards oppressors who never knew good relations with their subjects: we can't 'reconcile' if we never were friends.
fairity 6y ago
> The number of people in this thread arguing that apologies can only make things worse is shocking. Are these the same people who reject addressing war crimes with truth and reconciliation, and instead advocate "deny everything, make counteraccusations"? I think you're misunderstanding their claim. They are not making a claim that denial is better for society. They are making a claim that denial is better for the accused (and only in certain situations).
- laughinghan 6y ago
  Thank you for your thoughtful response. "The accused" is interesting framing. I would hope that no one expects the innocent but accused to apologize for something they didn't do. For the accused who are guilty, if we agree that denial is worse for society but currently better for the guilty, what can we do to change that, so that it is better for them to acknowledge fault and worse to remain in denial?
  - fairity 6y ago
    I think the crux of the issue is how powerful and unrelenting the internet mob has become. If there was a way to neuter this power, or better ensure the punishment enacted by the mob fits the crime, less people would advocate for denial. As it stands, public shaming often goes way overboard. For those interested in hearing more stories of this: https://www.ted.com/talks/jon_ronson_when_online_shaming_goes_too_far?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/jon_ronson_when_online_shaming_goe...
    - shirakawasuna 6y ago
      What is wrong with the public raising its expectations on public figures, companies, politicians, etc? This is what I read every time someone refers to the "internet mob". It's a bunch of normal people being loud on the internet over a perceived injustice with nothing particularly toxic compared to the injustices themselves or the way speech is curtailed in other contexts (you can't be frank with your boss most of the time, e.g.).
uppercase 6y ago
The number of people in this thread arguing that apologies can only make things worse is shocking. Are these the same people who reject addressing war crimes with truth and reconciliation, and instead advocate "deny everything, make counteraccusations"? Are you new here? No, so you shouldn't be surprised by these techbro echo chamber responses?
- shirakawasuna 6y ago
  I thought there was a decently-sized left contingent that could at least push back on them. Alas.
shirakawasuna 6y ago
Regarding war crimes, here's a friendly reminder that they're almost exclusively addressed against black Africans despite the many war crimes committed by others - and usually those with far more global power. In fact, the United States has spread the logic that if their members or those of their allies were ever brought before such a court, they would invade the Hague and retrieve them (i.e., do another war crime).

justatdotin 6y ago

IMO 'truth and reconciliation' should just focus on 'truth'. We don't owe war criminals reconciliation, but they owe us the truth.

laughinghan 6y ago
To clarify, the important thing about "reconciliation" is not about reconciling with war criminals, but about reconciling with supporters of war criminals, which are usually a pretty significant portion (sometimes the overwhelming majority) of the civilian population of the region or community that the war criminal is from. Often, those supporters have been on the receiving end of pretty serious hardships themselves. That doesn't justify supporting war crimes, of course, but if you don't acknowledge those hardships, you create resentment and the seeds of future strife, rather than healing.
- justatdotin 6y ago
  fair call, I know how that applies to collaborators from within targeted communities, but I've also seen it wrongfully directed towards oppressors who never knew good relations with their subjects: we can't 'reconcile' if we never were friends.

fairity 6y ago

> The number of people in this thread arguing that apologies can only make things worse is shocking. Are these the same people who reject addressing war crimes with truth and reconciliation, and instead advocate "deny everything, make counteraccusations"? I think you're misunderstanding their claim. They are not making a claim that denial is better for society. They are making a claim that denial is better for the accused (and only in certain situations).

laughinghan 6y ago
Thank you for your thoughtful response. "The accused" is interesting framing. I would hope that no one expects the innocent but accused to apologize for something they didn't do. For the accused who are guilty, if we agree that denial is worse for society but currently better for the guilty, what can we do to change that, so that it is better for them to acknowledge fault and worse to remain in denial?
- fairity 6y ago
  I think the crux of the issue is how powerful and unrelenting the internet mob has become. If there was a way to neuter this power, or better ensure the punishment enacted by the mob fits the crime, less people would advocate for denial. As it stands, public shaming often goes way overboard. For those interested in hearing more stories of this: https://www.ted.com/talks/jon_ronson_when_online_shaming_goes_too_far?language=en https://www.ted.com/talks/jon_ronson_when_online_shaming_goe...
  - shirakawasuna 6y ago
    What is wrong with the public raising its expectations on public figures, companies, politicians, etc? This is what I read every time someone refers to the "internet mob". It's a bunch of normal people being loud on the internet over a perceived injustice with nothing particularly toxic compared to the injustices themselves or the way speech is curtailed in other contexts (you can't be frank with your boss most of the time, e.g.).

uppercase 6y ago

shirakawasuna 6y ago
I thought there was a decently-sized left contingent that could at least push back on them. Alas.

shirakawasuna 6y ago

Regarding war crimes, here's a friendly reminder that they're almost exclusively addressed against black Africans despite the many war crimes committed by others - and usually those with far more global power. In fact, the United States has spread the logic that if their members or those of their allies were ever brought before such a court, they would invade the Hague and retrieve them (i.e., do another war crime).