11 ms·
Don’t Apologize: If the mob comes for you, stand up for yourself
- Swepool 5y agoAs one should
- IfOnlyYouKnew 5y agoThe mob isn't coming for you. If it is, your reaction should maybe depend on what the mob is criticising. The mob is people. They aren't always terribly smart, neither alone or in groups. But it does happen that individuals make mistakes, and that people notice them. What is this? "Self Help for Dummies, Who May or May Not Also Be Racists"?
- shkkmo 5y ago> If you face public criticism, you should first seriously contemplate if you have, in fact, done something wrong. If so, go ahead and apologize. Acknowledging mistakes is a sign of maturity and can be healing.
- trainsplanes 5y agoIndividuals make mistakes, yes. And mobs are clusters of angry individuals. Surely there’s a multiplier on the mistake factor when mobs go after people. Oftentimes they’re angry about one-sided stories or even lies.
- deft 5y agoThe shtick that cancel culture and "the twitter mob" don't even exist is falling apart, because insisting there is no war in ba sing se only works until a critical mass sees the evidence for themselves. Your argument is ridiculous and I'm sure you realize this. Again, I'm sure you know this already, but most people who are cancelled are innocent of any wrongdoing, and very few involve racism. Did you read the article? No one was accused of racism, yet the mob came for them.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- pfraze 5y agoIf you want a very thoughtful take on this topic, look up Lindsey Ellis’ “Mask Off” on YouTube.
- MattGaiser 5y agoOr you can issue an apology and change nothing. Companies long ago figured out this to be the optimal approach.
- 535188B17C93743 5y agoYep, it seems the options are: - Issue apology and piss off those who agreed with you and those who didn't won't acknowledge the apology - Don't issue apology and those who agree still agree and those who don't will forget about it/get over it.
- marcusverus 5y agoYou’ve left out the part where apologizing (i.e. appeasing) the mob rewards them with a “win”, reinforcing their behavior. As a father of a small child, I’ve learned that it’s important not to confer extra attention for acting out, otherwise I am effectively encouraging that behavior. I’ve heard this described as “don’t water weeds”. The modern mob is nothing more than the collective Id of so many sad, child-like human beings. Don't give in just because it’s easier in the short term. Don’t water the weeds.
- LegitShady 5y agoThat works for a company but it won’t work for a person. For a person an apology becomes a tacit admission of guilt and license for further harassment. See Chris Avelone, etc.
- IQunder130 5y agoCompany apologies don't work, they buy time until people stop giving a fuck. Personal apologies generally don't work if they're anything beyond what is demanded by conversational etiquette, since the people demanding them usually just want an admission of guilt they can hold over you forever as leverage, and anybody who agrees with you will be disappointed.
- SamoyedFurFluff 5y agoIsn’t this just also participating in mobbing behavior, except this time putting pressure and calling out individuals for the transgression of excessive apology?
- amznthrwaway 5y agoThe purpose of the article is to praise members of the violent right, like Ngo, a man who literally helped plan violent attacks; and to shame people who try to be nice. The idea is to encourage other extremists to become more extreme, and to encourage more radical behavior from the radical right. This is far-right propaganda, nothing more.
- orionblastar 5y agoNot much you can do if the mob gets you canceled and fired from your job. Might as well stand up to the bullies in the mob. Yes a mob is full of bullies who attack someone for being different in some way or have a different opinion. I already got downvoted twice with this message.
- prawn 5y agoA downvote can be to express disagreement - it might be that people think regardless of firing, you should often just ignore the so-called mob. Griping about downvotes will likely attract more.
- orionblastar 5y agoI use verbal self defense when attacked. Part of my martial arts training.
- prawn 5y agoI figure that the less front you present to an attacker, the less they have to attack. In an argument, say less. In a mob situation, minimise your apology. Write at length and you're almost guaranteed to present something someone will take issue with. Even if it's not a danger to you physically or to your career, it's likely a waste of your time!
- loopz 5y agoIt must not be Aikido you practice then. Anyway, people will downvote posts that break the HN guidelines (read the link on bottom).
- hhhhhdsgs 5y agoMaybe its hard to have a honest conversation about left wing cancel culture mobs on ultra left wing hacker news.
- bambambam2 5y agoIf the mob comes after you, its time to pick up a weapon and slaughter them. That’s what weapons are for.
- kokanator 5y agoAt times an apology is appropriate and necessary. However, when it is not, simply apologizing does nothing for the conversation or furthering any cause. It simply ferments continued abuses. If 'the mob' feels they can apply enough pressure to get you to bend, they will continue.
- czyzc 5y agoIMO it's possible to be supportive of free speech without (indirectly) supporting fascists and those who pal around with fascists.
- aerosmile 5y agoWinston Marshall had to leave Mumford and Sons to be able to stand up for himself. For anyone willing to throw away a life's worth of investment into their career in order to speak their mind, that's a good piece of advice. For everyone else, apologize. Or better yet, avoid getting into hot water. I have found HN to be a great barometer for what's "acceptable" and what isn't. Recently, I learned a valuable lesson - I shared an accurate statement about FB's targeting precision, which I am pretty sure nobody would have objected to. But as soon as I tied it to their financial results, it instantly offended one person and others felt they had to jump in as well. Lesson learned: the fact that Facebook is printing money is such a thorn in the eye for many people that the minute it's brought up in an unrelated context, it will 1) derail the conversation, 2) get people to disagree with what would have otherwise been a straight forward argument, and 3) get people to vilify you. So now that we know about this thorn, we can not just avoid it in future conversations, but we can also leverage it to our benefit. For instance, all you have to say is: "Man, I wish we could somehow get Facebook banned. Here's how effective their targeting is..." - and voila, everyone is agreeing with you! Long story short - don't piss against the wind.
- iamnotwhoiam 5y agoIt really looks to me like someone disagreed with you and you took it very personally. You jumped to claiming “offense” first. I think you should reread your thread in a few days when you’ve cooled off.
- aerosmile 5y agoIt's always good advice to reread things later. But please know that I would never take anything on the internet personally. I am grateful for the insight that came out of that conversation, and see it as one of the benefits of actively participating on HN.
- loopz 5y agoIMHO people take all the garbage written online too seriously and personal at times. It's mostly all just opinions and random rants. People's opinions do change at times. It's just not very visible to anyone.
- User23 5y agoThere are two kinds of mass media public apologies. There are the Jeffrey Toobin type apologies where the person apologizing has the support of the institutions and amenable authorities and the apology is a fig leaf for said powerful friends. And there is the other kind where it's some chump getting swarmed on social media and hearing from HR thinking the mob will lay off because he just admitted that he is in fact a witch. Obviously private apologies between friends and family are an entirely different thing.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jjmorrison 5y agoHe's right. Mobs don't do good in the world, no matter if you agree with their position or not. "Hate can't fight hate, only love can do that" Somehow we all think we're better at this than MLK was. No matter your beliefs, shame and hate won't help teach a different way.
- gameswithgo 5y agoThis idea is great when you are dealing with people who are earnest but misled, for instance Daryl Davis who has had great success getting people to leave the KKK. But many actors are not misled, just actively trying to do harm either for the sake of it, or for personal gain or because they are insane. No amount of love is going to get through to people like that. Think Hitler, Trump, Pol Pot, Putin, Marjorie Green, etc Sometimes you have to fight back
- jjmorrison 5y agoIt's really a beautifully simple and true statement. Hate simply cannot fight hate. Maybe some people are not meant to change in this lifetime. But if anything can help them, it's love. I really believe that. There should be consequences to actions if we want to incentive certain behaviors in society. But consequences don't require hate or even anger. Hitler may not have been destined to change. But what Daryl Davis does is show these people love. And if you've changed the lives of 200 KKK members - believe me, you've seen it all. You'd be hard press to cherry pick only the nice 200 KKK members.
- loopz 5y agoQuite funny to see all posts about love being transformational going ignored. What's the better option? Well-thought out arguments? These people will piss on your discourse and rile up the mob against you with their own sins! They lie and cheat, and get away with too - with corruption and threats. They will opt to burn everything down, and they sometimes can, than submit to justice. We all know the kind of people. Paradoxially these emotional black holes of human beings seek love and recognition. The silent acceptance from the populace of such behaviour speaks volumes.
- panny 5y ago>Today, the mob acts primarily through social media, meaning that the pile-on can come for anybody, at any time, with little to no warning. It should be stated that this mob is typically comprised of bot accounts. It's not even a real mob. It's just some government or group who wants to peer pressure you with internet good boy points.
- l0b0 5y agoAny large enough pile-on, whether real or orchestrated, pulls in real people with nothing better to do than being outraged at things they have little to no insight into. The bots are just there until the attention is self-sustaining.
- panny 5y agoSure, that's one possible dynamic. The more I see, the more I believe the empty internet theory though.
- werber 5y agoI’m not sure what to make of the back and forth here. Colorism overlooked by older generations, and someone looking back on not supporting unionization and having a value shift, juxtaposed with Maoist shaming to support someone who wrote a book saying antifa (a concept, not a group) is destroying democracy and a musician supporting that person stepping back from the spotlight seems a bit jarring. At first this seems like libertarian pandering, but my most cynical inner voice is saying the writer is a troll trying to get people who hold farther right ideals to get themselves canceled. And I guess the trickle down effect from that milkshake that hit the writer in the face is going to make me buy the book, so maybe that’s the point.
- renewiltord 5y agoApologies are pointless. Some dude will say "He's apologizing because he got caught not because he's sorry" and you can't prove otherwise because that's literally unfalsifiable. Then the mob will just jump on that bit. Don't waste your time.
- Igelau 5y agoIt's a terrible sort of gaslighting. The amount of times I've been told my in-person apologies are insincere is staggering. I don't know if it's flat affect on my part or a reflex ingrained by TV dramas, but I do know it's largely pointless to apologize. At the end of the day, we're the ones who must live with our own feelings. If I must apologize, I'm going to feel that viscerally, and I'll apologize for my own conscience. Likewise, forgiveness is a favor someone else has to do for themselves to alleviate their own emotions -- it needn't matter to me.
- loopz 5y agoIt's not about you. But about what each person in the mob projects out into the world. When enough people would be insincere themselves, no matter what you say, they just can't believe your sincerity. Mobs are mindless and project, but are lead by individuals in the mob that are either caught up in it or just lack certain insights into themselves. What makes it chaotic and unpredictable is that the leaders change and eat their own all the time.
- nicklecompte 5y agoI don’t want to step into this particular minefield (nor should any progressive, really) but I thought this tiny part of the argument was unusually bad reasoning: > To give such a forceful statement on the nation’s most-watched late-night talk show, it’s fair to assume that Moreno must have understood the “colorism” debate and given her position serious consideration. Who honestly believes that people on Steven Colbert are giving serious thought and consideration to their responses in the interview? It actually seems more likely that she went on Colbert to promote her show and tell some jokes, got blindsided with a controversial question and gave an answer she regretted (the statement was not at all “forceful” and seemed much more about her personal affection for Lin-Miranda than any serious political motivation). In any case it is not “fair to assume” that interviewees on late night shows are especially prepared - Steven Colbert is not Meet the Press! Stuff like this is why the newsletter trend is kinda worrying: smart people need editors, otherwise they will write transparently stupid things.
- NoOneNew 5y agoYes, the interviewees are prepped before the show starts. This is pretty well known.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Quekid5 5y agoI think you might have missed the word "especially" before "prepared" in the post you're replying to. The language is also a bit ambiguous (see below). It's well known that guest are (usually) prepared (by the show!) in the sense that they at the very least have a general idea of the major points of conversation, but having a full list of all the exact questions, etc. is quite a bit rarer (AFAIK, at least). Regardless, the parent poster could also have meant that the guests themselves(!) do very little preparation with the information they get from the show. The amount of preparation by the guest would probably depend heavily on the agent, the contentiousness of the questions that they know about, how high the stakes are (e.g. first ever interview on Colbert for an up-and-comer?), etc. etc.
- livinginfear 5y agoLikening modern 'woke' mob outrage on Twitter to Maoist China is the correct analogy. The purpose of being 'cancelled' is not any kind of real social justice. It's the enforcement of an ideological orthodoxy. Never apologise to the mob. Even a superficial understanding of game theory shows you that you have nothing to gain from the self-flagellation involved in a public apology. Remember, You'll never be forgiven. I've never seen an example where the mob has pursued entirely altruistic goals. It's the witch-trials of the 21st century. Nothing more.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jopsen 5y ago> Likening modern 'woke' mob outrage on Twitter to Maoist China is the correct analogy. I would personally rather be cancelled on social media, than having my breathing cancelled. It's should be possible to disagree and criticize without analogies to various atrocities involving mass murder. Drawing such parallels is a form of cancelling, as it effectively prevents any defense or discourse on the subject. Whatever "cancelling" that's going around is not all that new.
- rektide 5y agoweird days. a lot of complainy people conflating government authoritarianism with the activity of private entities/personal citizens. this is mirrored in the right's complaints about private services "censoring" them, as if we are citizen's under their power & protection. similarly a bunch of people lambasting you online being conflated with government/state use of power against you... wild days.
- Grieving 5y agoThey are absolutely not complaining about private citizens lambasting them online. It's entrenched monopolies in cooperation with the state itself that work to ruin right-wing (and left-wing in the case of TERFs, Deep Greens, etc.) dissidents' lives and deny their ability to speak. For instance, banks are closing their accounts for opposing the status quo. Banking is so strictly regulated, incestuous, and intertwined with the state that innovation is notoriously difficult; and innovation from an explicitly adversarial entity with no institutional support is nearly impossible. What's more, if one lives in a red state surrounded by people similar to them on the political spectrum, they'll still have their employers harassed to keep them from holding down a job. It's not their peers "cancelling" them; it's a minority of people with wildly different worldviews from wildly different parts of the country. It's not all that different from swatting.
- spoonjim 5y agoWhat I’ve found is that because of the consequences these days, I can’t express any genuinely held opinions of mine in my social network, besides “The Chiefs will win the Super Bowl” and similar. And because of this, there is no tempering effect on these opinions. I find myself becoming more extremist because I don’t have the moderating effect of the crowd, because I no longer discuss “issues” with my “crowd.”
- gameswithgo 5y agoHave you stopped and maybe talked to someone you respect about these beliefs? When everyone else thinks you are being an asshole sometimes it is because you are. Ive certainly had to face that at times in my life.
- LegitShady 5y agoAlternately maybe the overwhelming social pressure doesn’t necessarily make an opinion true, just popular, or everyone else who agrees is just as scared to risk their careers etc as he is.
- eclipxe 5y agoYou are free to voice your opinion. Society is free to provide feedback to you on those opinions. If you have an opinion that a sufficient cohort of your peers in society feel is out of bounds for where society is headed or not compatible with the prevailing world view, society will provide corrective consequences/accountability. The system is working as it should.
- ThrowawayR2 5y ago> "If you have an opinion that a sufficient cohort of your peers in society feel is out of bounds for where society is headed or not compatible with the prevailing world view, society will provide corrective consequences/accountability." Society used to "provide corrective consequences/accountability" for atheism/agnosticism, advocating for socialism and workers' rights, advocating for the abolition of slavery and equal rights for PoC, advocating for LGBTQ rights, and so forth since all of those were violently opposed by the majority of society. By using the argument, the parent poster and anyone else who uses it implies that they would not only would have been okay with suppressing those rights but also would have enthusiastically supported "consequences" for those rights advocates if they'd been around in the era before those people became protected classes. If this doesn't make it obvious why that argument has zero validity, nothing will. What's more the "it's A-OK for society to beat you up for going against the majority" argument is an argument born of _conservatism_, since it literally argues for preserving the status quo. It's stunning to hear people supposedly on the left repeating it.
- Werewolf255 5y agoI was done after he actively defended Andy Ngo. I was very much prepared to support this article, but it starts out with comparisons to Maoist China with the most self serving example of that regime's actions, and keep going further. J.K Rowling refuses to let the mob 'get her down'. Should Harvey Weinstein have bravely rallied against 'cancel culture'? If cancel culture is such a thing to be feared, why is Amazon Prime still working?
- LegitShady 5y agoPlease explain what Andy Ngo did that nobody should be able to have a different opinion of him without you dismissing him? JK Rowling is a billionaire who doesn’t need much in the way of connections anymore, but she is certainly constantly attacked and abused, and has lost many opportunities for standing up for what she believes in. That you don’t care about it and think that amazon still sells her books doesn’t mean a woke mob didn’t attempt to cancel her doesn’t make that true, just means you aren’t paying attention. Comparing either of those two to Harvey Weinstein is the real dishonesty done here.
- Werewolf255 5y agoAnybody is free to have an opinion on Andy Ngo but calling him, with complete credulity, someone who "became noteworthy by documenting the excesses of the far left" without mentioning his vocal and widespread reporting in favor of white supremacy, with the Proud Boys being the most prominent example, doesn't make me think the author is being genuine. If the article had a more nuanced view as opposed to pushing a point along the lines of 'never give up, never surrender', I expect I'd be far more open to its message and reasoning.
- LegitShady 5y agoAndy Ngo is a gay Asian man. Any claims of support of white supremacy seem like those calling Ben Shapiro a nazi - ridiculous on their face and guilt by association that doesn’t stand any test of logic beyond grossly painting someone with bad words because they don’t want him to be able to speak credibly. Perhaps the people who aren’t genuine are those who make opposition to antifa the same thing as ‘favour of white supremacy’. I don’t think we’re going to come to an agreement.
- shadowgovt 5y agoIt really depends on what your goals are the right way to engage if you get mobbed. I operate on two rules of thumb in this space: 1) you have absolutely zero control over the mob. The mob is a force of nature. They will decide you are the most important thing for several hours, and then they will change their minds. Or they won't. Point is, you can't control it. 2) The most important thing is to not be surprised by a mob about yourself. If you're going to get mobbed, may it at least happen because of something you intended to communicate, not because of a flippant thought shouted into the global-cast megaphone that is Twitter.
- jmull 5y agoI don't think this is great advice. You can think about the mob coming after you in three groups: (1) People who aren't listening. Their minds are closed. They are angry or mean or otherwise won't listen no matter what you say. They don't care if you apologize or not. (2) People with an agenda against you. They are going to keep going after you whether you apologize or not. But they probably actually like it better if you don't -- that inflames the conflict, keeping it going or expanding it. Their agenda is usually served the bigger and longer the conflict lasts. Also, as long as the conflict is going strong, the people from (1) will keep chiming in, but they will lose interest when it dies down. (3) People who were actually offended or hurt but have an open mind. These are the people you can reach with an apology. These are the people you need to talk to to understand what actually offended or hurt them. You might be able to do even better than an apology and understand where things went wrong. Remember, if you're not a dick, you don't actually want to hurt other people. This is your opportunity to stop doing that. (And if you are a dick, maybe you deserve your internet mob, at least partially?) So: Talk to people. Apologize sincerely if you can find a way to do it. You won't stop the mob, but you might take some of the energy out of it and you can stop hurting some people.
- tarboreus 5y agoNumber three seems in short supply in recent times.
- IanSanders 5y agoNo matter what you say, someone somewhere will get offended, or think they got offended.
- say_it_as_it_is 5y agoThe bigger problem isn't people standing up for themselves but others not coming to aid in their defense. Some are too afraid to become the next victim. Others simply don't care enough.
- maxehmookau 5y agoI definitely expected to see that this was written by DHH.
- Traster 5y ago>To give such a forceful statement on the nation’s most-watched late-night talk show, it’s fair to assume that Moreno must have understood the “colorism” debate and given her position serious consideration. Why, then, was she so quick to flip-flop, retract her statement, and atone? Occam’s Razor would tell us that her apology, like Miranda’s, was simply a capitulation to avoid the internet’s wrath. I think this is such bad reasoning. This is nothing to do with Occam's razor, this is just the author making random assumptions about what happened without knowing the facts. In most of the cases that the author talks about, they're literally just bringing their own assumptions about what happened and then deciding someone shouldn't apologize. PJ Vogt wasn't cancelled by a mob, he was cancelled by his colleagues for legitimate complaints they had, and he was absolutely right to reflect on his own behaviour. This article however, just seeks to minimize what happened to one accusation (anti-unioinization) which clearly was not the only problem, and then go "Oh that's not so bad". And he repeats this over and over, people aren't criticizing Andy Ngo for "documenting the worst excesses of the far left". It's just so weird for a person to repeatedly look at someone apologize for something and say "No, actually I know better, they shouldn't apologize". I actually think there are cases where the mob is wrong - "Bean Dad" is a great example. But the examples in these cases just seem like such weird right wing hobby horses.
- giantg2 5y agoIt's easy to say that one should voice their opinion and not retract things. It can be costly though. I've always been one to speak my mind when others won't, but the older I get the more I realize that it is often best to keep your head down and stay quiet. I would likely be further along in my career if I had just learnt to be a 'yes man'.
- codyswann 5y agoLife is an asset. The more you invest in it, the more you stand to lose.
- spcebar 5y agoMy aunt owned an airport bar in an era and place of high mafia activity. There was a racket at the time to extort vending machine profits with protection schemes. When they came to my aunt to offer their protection, she implied that a rival gang had already extorted her, and that they owned/protected her vending machines. This was apparently enough to get them to leave her and her bar alone.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jl2718 5y agoExcept that torture works. Social and financial coercion works. Perceived threat to loved ones, even just shame by association, works. Forced apologies and confessions are easy to extract from anybody.
- rchaud 5y ago> "Mao and his fellow revolutionaries understood the power of mob humiliation and used it to terrorize the country into ideological conformity." Considering that this article is primarily about the American entertainment and media industry, couldn't the writer have used a historical reference that was closer to home? Or is it used intentionally, to make it seem like Lin-Manuel Miranda's career snafu is on the same level of historical importance as Mao's purges?
- sativallday 5y agoFirst it was domestic espionage leaks that results in online discourse taking a step back. People became more apprehensive to share their opinions and simply kept them to themselves. Unfortunately the mob will have a compounding effect in conjunction with the aforementioned reduction in online discourse. Differences in opinions will no longer be acceptable. Eventually the mob will turn on their own as the radicalization accelerates. I would argue this is a great place for foreign psyops to target the western populous and I'm sure its already being targeted to some extent.