12 ms·

The case against the Twitter apology and our culture of performed remorse

113 points by mitchbob 4y ago

ergonaught 4y ago
Jimmy Swaggart wants a word with you.
rqtwteye 4y ago
The same can be said for things like diversity statements. You know exactly what you are supposed to say and any deviation will be punished . It’s just a formality you have to perform correctly.
- eastbound 4y ago
  In other words, we tell lies, to people who pretend to believe them. Everyone lies and we know it, our companies have mottos and everyone knows they’re fluff, and we teach kids to “thrive in ambiguity”, which is a beautiful phrase I’ve found on a job offer and which I have found symptomatic of our economy. I still wonder what it was like to live in ex-RDA. Did people tell lies that others pretended to believe?
  - chitowneats 4y ago
    ya hehe I had to be it's what reputations are made of, to some extent I feel bad for those who get f*** by it by this dumb game we woke westerners play where we say all the right shiboleths and so everyone likes us
    - Zanni 4y ago
      Note to down voters: this is a (relevant) direct quote from SBF's interview in Vox. [0] [0] https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23462333/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-cryptocurrency-effective-altruism-crypto-bahamas-philanthropy https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23462333/sam-bankman-frie...
      - drooby 4y ago
        Whoa, this guys is a straight up sociopath
        nmz 4y ago
        Which would make him perfect CEO material too.
      - plugin-baby 4y ago
        Thanks! I had read it as poetry.
        chitowneats 4y ago
        It's certainly poetic.
    - Sakos 4y ago
      > by this dumb game we woke westerners play where we say all the right shiboleths and so everyone likes us Unfortunately, the people who treat it like a game like SBF are the ones who make it in business and in politics. There's no need to have ethics if it's sufficient just to act like you do. Reminds me of Kyrsten Sinema who played the part until she had the job.
      - clnq 4y ago
        Related: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-....
    - uxp100 4y ago
      I gotta say that removing the context from this sort of changes its meaning in a misleading way for those seeing it for the first time. It makes perfect sense in this context as well but some people have interpreted this as a sort of nihilism, but it’s actually an endorsement of pure utilitarianism, more or less. Which doesn’t make it better, my big take away from all the FTX stuff is that SBF and friends were just uh, not that smart, just dipshits losing other peoples money and thinking everything in life was as easy as impressing brainless VCs. (With some actual on purpose fraud mixed in as well, who knows)
      - chitowneats 4y ago
        > pure utilitarianism > a sort of nihilism The SBF saga is a great example of how easily the former degenerates into the latter. We're talking about someone who graduated MIT. He clearly has some amount of smarts and personal drive. "He's just a dipshit" is not an adequate explanation. Though, yeah, he ends up a dipshit at the end of the story (presumably).
        jeffskiling 4y ago
  - rqtwteye 4y ago
    “In other words, we tell lies, to people who pretend to believe them.” The same happens at corporations. When you are in planning meetings you often know the politically correct answer already. If you say it will actually take five times longer you are out of the inner circle. That although everybody knows that it will take that long. Seems the whole hierarchy is one big circle where everybody bullshits each other and knows it.
  - inglor_cz 4y ago
    I wonder if a descent to full-blown Soviet "Vranyo" (brazen lying) can be prevented. As in: "They lie to us, we know they're lying, they know we know they're lying, but they keep lying to us, and we keep pretending to believe them." Pretty much the only brake pad on that machine is that capitalism actually requires at least some efficiency from the players, and a web of lies like that will destroy any institution. But I am far from certain.
    - eastbound 4y ago
      I often compare science environments to general environments. In science, if you’re wrong, there’s no pardon: Your rocket doesn’t land on the moon, so you gotta keep your speech clear, your expertise precise, and your reputation perfect. In speech environments, if you’re handwaving it and are dishonest, you win the market. Science environments are better suited for me, but I get bashed in general environments…
      - inglor_cz 4y ago
        There is science and science. Rocket science is notoriously unforgiving. Nutrition science is pretty much the opposite, a half-hearted attempt to make sense of "garbage in, garbage out". The difference is in, among others, loopback length. If something goes wrong during a rocket launch, the fireball is only seconds away. Not so much in food and health, where the consequences take decades and multiple causal factors are hard to disentangle.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      Orwell wrote this in a letter in 1944: "Everywhere the world movement seems to be in the direction of centralised economies which can be made to ‘work’ in an economic sense but which are not democratically organised and which tend to establish a caste system. With this go the horrors of emotional nationalism and a tendency to disbelieve in the existence of objective truth because all the facts have to fit in with the words and prophecies of some infallible fuhrer. Already history has in a sense ceased to exist, ie. there is no such thing as a history of our own times which could be universally accepted, and the exact sciences are endangered as soon as military necessity ceases to keep people up to the mark. Hitler can say that the Jews started the war, and if he survives that will become official history. He can’t say that two and two are five, because for the purposes of, say, ballistics they have to make four. But if the sort of world that I am afraid of arrives, a world of two or three great superstates which are unable to conquer one another, two and two could become five if the fuhrer wished it. That, so far as I can see, is the direction in which we are actually moving, though, of course, the process is reversible."
- tenpies 4y ago
  The problem is that a non-trivial segment of the population does believe it with zealous devotion. They've attended the diversity seminaries, taken the oaths, and there is no off-ramp for their faith. The other problem is politicians cannot differentiate between performative displays and actual values. The end result is that you see diversity quotas elevated above all other priorities and criteria.
  - yanderekko 4y ago
    >The problem is that a non-trivial segment of the population does believe it with zealous devotion Yes, but the diversity statements are not meant to separate the ordained from the masses, it's to ensure that actual heretics (or just those who are not properly accultured to understand what constitutes a transgression of social justice etiquette) are filtered.
mjburgess 4y ago
Forgiveness as a kind of mourning makes sense, but is counter-intuitive. I think we've come to regard "forgiveness" as inevitably ending with reconsiliation. But perhaps, more often, it shouldnt. That is, forgiveness is how I see the other when I see them not as an enemy or friend, but as a tragic part of nature. I have moved on. Our ability to forgive has, perhaps, been distorted by the perception that it's an act of kindness. I think, rather, it's the most rutheless form of grief there is. Another insight from the article is apology as a kind of non-violent humilitation. And the idea that apology even as a cultural expectation is somewhat rare and somewhat contingent on the era. This, again, makes sense but feels counter-intutive. What would a society look like which forgives without apologies? Perhaps one much better at moving on, much better at focusing on outcomes rather than obsessing about status. Perhaps the "purpetrator" doesnt need to apologise, we can just forgive them and punish them at once. We punish not to humiliate as an act of vengence, but as a necessary step to a better outcome. Eg., firing a dangerous boss, breaking up with a partner, etc.
- ehnto 4y ago
  That is how I see forgiveness also, a letting go of the issue at hand, almost a delegation of the reconciliation to the other party. It's their problem to think over now. I have a past business partner who more or less, stole all our gear and fled. I let them know how I felt, but told them I wouldn't be actioning it any further than that. I let them know the social consequences of their actions were absolute, there's no way I'd treat them as a friend or work with them again, but I understood why they felt they needed to do it and I hope they find themselves in a better place.
- weberer 4y ago
  >We punish not to humiliate as an act of vengence No, I think that's exactly how the Twitter mob operates. These people treat politics as some sort of religious war.
  - SoftTalker 4y ago
    Politics and religion aren't very far apart. In some parts of the world they are nearly the same thing. Elsewhere, the belief in deities is the main differentiator, and even there it can get blurry, based on how some supporters seem to worship their leaders almost as gods.
themaninthedark 4y ago
An apology is useless if it is not accompanied by a change in behavior. Actually, worse than useless as it is an insult. I know what I am doing is wrong but I am not changing. Large public apologies are performance art.
- seydor 4y ago
  Yes, and audiences love performance art. They don't even really hate the actor for what they did, they enjoy the vengeful feelings i guess. Everything is molded to please the public.
  - banannaise 4y ago
    It's not the public who is pleased. It's the talking heads, the newsroom bosses, the politicians, the corporate officers. The people who can spread the message that the public is pleased, regardless of whether the public is actually pleased. And as long as the public is not incredibly angry, they'll mostly just quietly go along with it, because it's not worth fighting against. But they're not the source. It's manufactured forgiveness.
- washadjeffmad 4y ago
  Apologies don't necessarily imply wrongdoing. An apology can be issued to acknowledge inconvenience or understanding, or to indicate someone is being heard. You can apologize for not changing or for disagreeing.
  - nmz 4y ago
    Example: "I'm sorry to say this but" ... Means you acknowledge the hurt saying something will cause but you still need to say it. because it needs to be said.
    - Mikeb85 4y ago
      No it means you pretend to apologise but are really talking more shit. Everyone knows the part before the "but" is passive aggressive window dressing and means nothing.
i_am_proteus 4y ago
Insincerity should be the expected outcome from bullying people via socioeconomic pressure into making public apologies. Forcing someone to make a public statement via explicit or implicit threat of loss of income or ostracization is playground politics for adults.
- jmull 4y ago
  If you make your money based on how popular you are, you are going to lose money, one way or another, if you start pissing off lots of people. Bullying and playground politics just isn't the right way to think about this. Kyrie, e.g., put the economic pressure on himself. Nike sells shoes. They don't want to pay him anymore because he can't sell shoes nearly as well now, and might impact their ability to sell shoes long-term. Regarding the Nets and NBA, Kyrie's many million dollar contract isn't exactly for playing basketball. It's for his ability to get lots and lots of people to want to watch basketball. When he pissed off a lot of people he doesn't do that very well, and his value as a basketball player drops.
  - yanderekko 4y ago
    Yes, and? Again, this is just an explanation of why one should expect insincere apologies - because the apology is being made for financial reasons, not genuine contrition.
    - jmull 4y ago
      I don't disagree that insincere apologies usually don't work very well. My point is that the "socioeconomic pressure" in many cases has nothing to do "bullying," "threats," or "playground politics". It can be self-inflicted: If you lower your value to the people who give you money, they will no longer want to give you as much money.
      - savryn 4y ago
        Well if this take away from my spins // Which'll probably take away from my ends // Then I hope this take away from my sins
wernercd 4y ago
Apologizing to a mob never makes sense. You just make the other mob angry and most of the current mob doesn't think you're authentic anyways. Or, as the article says, "It was either not enough or, oh, my God, please stop.". Trying to placate a mob is pointless. Be authentic (apologize if you really mean it), otherwise stand your ground and stay still. The mob will move on eventually. They are fickle and easily distracted. If you stay still? they'll move on. If you dart around? You're a target for the pack. Let them find the next target.
- ehnto 4y ago
  A great way to think about any discussion on the public internet to be honest. Everything you say on twitter is to a mob, and within that mob is a very diverse group of people, not all of them working with the same perspective or even the same context and goals as you. There's that joke about using accidentally using Personality A with Friend Group B; with the modern social internet, you're talking to every friend group at the same time and I think that's why we have such defensive pretense, placation and weasel wording going on. You lose all nuance, and you also lose benefit of the doubt. I think that's what is missing on broadcast platforms like FB/Twitter et al, and why Discord has been such a hit. Discord gives you discrete friend groups, so you can form deeper more nuanced dialogues about topics over a long period of time.
- _yb2s 4y ago
  Exactly, this integrity and sincerity is what is missing with this stuff. These people are apologizing out of fear, not because they feel it’s the right thing to do.
mauriciolange 4y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20221111171546/https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/11/14/the-case-against-the-twitter-apology-matthew-ichihashi-potts-forgiveness-danya-ruttenberg-on-repentance-and-repair https://web.archive.org/web/20221111171546/https://www.newyo...
mattgreenrocks 4y ago
Whoever figures out a secular distillation of the concept of grace is going to be very, very successful in community-building. The lack of it is painfully apparent, and it offers something to both the accused and the accusers. Now, whether people actually want that from others in these cases, or are merely enjoying the use of power a little too much, is another discussion.
- seydor 4y ago
  grace or forgiveness?
  - tdehnel 4y ago
    Forgiveness: Making a big deal about how great you are for not judging someone, making it all about you. I forgive you. Grace: Getting on with your life and not letting yourself get caught up in someone else’s moral failings. You do you.
    - chasd00 4y ago
      I can see how forgiveness can be weaponized like that but to me forgiveness is only there to benefit the forgiver. Granted, getting good at forgiveness risks you just becoming a door mat. Similarly, Getting good at grace risks you becoming naive and ignorant to the world around you.
      - d4mi3n 4y ago
        How does this dynamic of grace vs forgiveness interact with genuine feelings of guilt? There are times in life where we (or people around us) fuck up. Genuine remorse occurs and receiving forgiveness can bring closure as it can signal that a relationship with someone is still there. I think assuming forgiveness is a one-way interaction may be true in some contexts, but not all.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  I genuinely don't think it's compatible with contemporary western morality that holds that actions are either valid expressions of self-actualization and so require no apology, or are transgressions for which no forgiveness is possible. The idea that regardless of a person's "right" to make a certain choice, an action can be so harmful that it cannot be corrected, but also that it can be forgiven is too far from how we think and live now.
logicalmonster 4y ago
Has anybody well-known ever used a phrase like "For my own personal safety, I apologize for XYZ transgression" when apologizing to a Twitter mob? Kind of curious how that simultaneous apology and subtle call-out might work.
- JSchmoe 4y ago
  That'd make no sense to do. The "Twitter mob" remains angry and now a few more people are annoyed that you openly gave a non-apology.
  - logicalmonster 4y ago
    The reason I brought up that phrase is that Scott Adams of the Dilbert cartoon endorsed Hillary in 2016 using this exact language, despite actually liking Trump. > "So I’ve decided to endorse Hillary Clinton for President, for my personal safety." If I recall correctly, he says that merely that endorsement, however transparently fake it was, got a lot of people off of his back.
    - JSchmoe 4y ago
      Huh, people are weird!
seydor 4y ago
It's not a "culture" issue imho. The mainstream basically decided to promote those staged "apologies", signaling to other celebrities that they should act like that, and they did.
- chitowneats 4y ago
  What the mainstream promotes is culture. Contemporary culture at the very least.
  - seydor 4y ago
    hey no, that may look like that in america, but even there it is not true, the deep cultural characteristics of americans (e.g. hard work) won't change if the media tells them so. Popular culture is not the whole of culture in general
    - chitowneats 4y ago
      I did not say it was the whole of culture. I said it was culture. In English, saying something "is" something does not mean it is only that, or that it is all of that.
sinoue 4y ago
Its cultural and Trump epitomized the worst of American sorry not sorry. That is why Twitter mob justice plays a role in accountability and creating hyped outrage.
eesmith 4y ago
> Whose P.R.-purposed apology was worse? Al Franken’s or Louis C.K.’s? ... At SorryWatch.com and @SorryWatch, Susan McCarthy and Marjorie Ingall have been Let's take a look at what they say about those two, at https://sorrywatch.com/al-and-louie/ https://sorrywatch.com/al-and-louie/ . Franken's first apology was a not-pology. The second is described as, on the whole, a good apology. As for Louis C.K.'s: "People! He never says he’s sorry! So many words, and none of them are “I’m sorry” or “I apologize”!" And from https://sorrywatch.com/a-roundup-of-good-celebrity-apologies/ https://sorrywatch.com/a-roundup-of-good-celebrity-apologies... : "Look, I’m feeling kinda demoralized by people thinking Louis CK apologized well, what with him not actually saying he was sorry. (As we note repeatedly here, REGRET IS NOT APOLOGY, chant it with me.) I don't see how the author of this piece connects Franken's apology to "performed remorse". How are we to conclude it wasn't an expression of real remorse?
- nmz 4y ago
  Weird, it seems the authors don't even know what an apology is or an i'm sorry is. Everyone can say "I'm Sorry" it means so many things that in reality it means nothing. Regret and admittance of wrongdoing is the point of an apology, it means the individual knows their actions were wrong, and they would take them back. That's much better than an "I'm Sorry", which usually means, "really wish you wouldn't feel so bad" or "lets move past this".
  - eesmith 4y ago
    The "regret is not apology" seems to refer to a specific type of regret. That is, https://sorrywatch.com/regret-is-not-apology-karl/ https://sorrywatch.com/regret-is-not-apology-karl/ says: > Regret is all about you; apology is all about another person’s feelings. Regret stands alone; apology reaches out to someone else. Also, shut up with the whole “regret the controversy” business. That phrase just means, “I’m irked at other people.” Regret your actions, then apologize for them. Do not say you regret other people’s responses to your being an asshole. Note that it contains "regret" used two different ways. Your "admittance of wrongdoing" is part of "regret your actions", while that chant concerns "regret other people’s responses". You can see the book authors' "The Six Steps to a Good Apology" at https://sorrywatch.com/ https://sorrywatch.com/ . Your "knows their actions are wrong" is "2. Say specifically what you’re sorry FOR" and your "would take them back" is likely closest to "5. Explain the actions you’re taking to insure this won’t happen again." (See also https://sorrywatch.com/the-parts-of-a-good-apology/ https://sorrywatch.com/the-parts-of-a-good-apology/ .) Thing is, I don't think the author of the New Yorker piece really addresses the points of the book, but instead uses it as a stepping stone to a very different interpretation of the topic, and lumping the book into a lumpy mishmash of religion and Twitter mobs. Which that book ... doesn't seem to be about. The web site gives an example of a good apology that Lincoln gave to Grant, at https://sorrywatch.com/when-lincoln-was-wrong/ https://sorrywatch.com/when-lincoln-was-wrong/ , and commentary on Grant's poor apology for ordering the expulsion of Jews from the Department of Tennessee, followed by his actions which help make up for that apology.
politician 4y ago
As I scrolled down the article, my browser reduced the reading area down to ~6.8 lines of content rendered into a rectangle having an area of ~8 square inches. The rest of the screen filled itself with junk. If anyone from the New Yorker is reading, please tweak the breakpoints on the media queries for the 13" MacBook Air. :emoji-laughing-at-the-futility-of-such-an-ask:
chasd00 4y ago
the only winning move is not to play. If you find yourself at the receiving end of a fully motivated twitter mob the way out is waiting for the mob to find another target and then picking up the pieces.
jscipione 4y ago
f154hfds 4y ago
Forgiveness in the Bible is formalized as a cancelled debt: the act of forgiveness is when you decide to eat the cost of a debt owed (Matthew 18:21-35). I think forgiveness is mostly misunderstood by our society. It has several implications: 1. Forgiveness does not equate to trust or even reconciliation. If I lent you $1000 and you never paid me back, I might forgive your debt but will be much less inclined to trust you with my money in the future. 2. Forgiveness absolutely does not necessitate repentance of the perpetrator. In the Bible forgiveness is a necessity regardless of the situation because the Bible treats the inability of a Christian to forgive the ultimate hypocrisy (Matthew 6:14-15). 3. Wronging another person (or yourself - this might be far more common) does tangible harm to them. This harm is analogous to a financial debt owed. This debt is on the cosmic books so to speak: it's very real and must be dealt with either by forgiveness or retributive justice (or a combination of the two). Restorative justice is important but can't fix the original debt. 4. An apology no matter how sincere can't undo the debt either, it is usually impossible to make it right (unlike a financial debt which can be repaid). Society misses this at its own peril: forgiveness trumps apologies every time, this is the nature of wrongdoing. If anything we downplay how hard it is to make things right! As if a few well chosen words and humiliation could undo Will Smith's Slap? It can't work because it doesn't go back in time and change history to make the thing not happen! 5. Repentance makes it easier to forgive (it enables the victim and the perpetrator to meet in the middle), but it's always going to be hard to tell if repentance is genuine. See point 2.
- SoftTalker 4y ago
  > An apology no matter how sincere can't undo the debt either, it is usually impossible to make it right (unlike a financial debt which can be repaid). Often illustrated as "you can't un-ring a bell" You can sincerely regret having done something harmful, but rarely does that undo the harm.
- int_19h 4y ago
  > This debt is on the cosmic books so to speak: it's very real and must be dealt with either by forgiveness or retributive justice (or a combination of the two). Restorative justice is important but can't fix the original debt. Retributive justice can't fix the debt, either - it just makes more people hurt than before.
nmz 4y ago
I've always fantasized about a facebook like dirty laundry website. basically a place where people freely and anonymously perform slander and indicate all the wrongdoings of everyone. Not unlike what we have now, but organized. It would either completely break some people, or show how incredibly hypocritical mob justice is with their public shaming.
- executive 4y ago
  https://thedirty.com/ https://thedirty.com/
  - nmz 4y ago
    This is pure internet gossip cancer... It's great. Now they just need to clean it up and be more facebook like and done.
thrown_22 4y ago
Funny how the literati have discovered that twitter is bad as soon as their friends no longer run it.
tsylba 4y ago
Once a media is accepted and known by the multitude it becomes performative, a spectacle where authenticity vanished preempted by new social rules. Beaudrillard's hyperreality describes the situation where we don't live in reality anymore but in the image of the reality we build, akin to an AI learning from data generated by another AI. It seems our current internet culture - heavily centralized, and universally used - is hyperreal, a performative space bound by rules of how to act, how to be accepted, what to say and not to say. In this kind of constructs I believe authenticity vanishes. I wonder how we might prevent this things to happen. I suspect it's linked with demography and popularity, something something Dunbar's number related.
- user3939382 4y ago
  > hyperreality describes the situation where we don't live in reality anymore but in the image of the reality we build This concept is almost tautological since the only conceivable alternative would be universal omniscience.
  - erichocean 4y ago
    Eh? The Amish (for instance) don't live in hyperreality (by Beaudrillard's definition).
  - tsylba 4y ago
    I might have add "upon itself". There is much to say about what is reality, and you can bring researcher like Hoffmann stating that we see of reality only what is good for our peak survival (don't need infrared, don't see infrared). Hyperreality is something else altogether. First, it's a common theme in postmodernist to state we live in a construct culturally accepted and ever evolving. Hyperreality states that we accept for reality layers that are objectively not, and make it "more real than real". The flavors of energy drinks (with weird names and chemically cultivated), porn for sex, Disney land as archetypal America, tv reality (which is everything but reality). Transposing the sign-value for the thing by itself. Words does not mean the thing that they use to mean but are reinterpreted upon this biased view of reality. The map is not the territory, the word are not the reality behind them. Media are more problematic because they are the message (see McLuhan), they are a space we live in (the water the fish flow in), not "reality" sense by our direct organ. But yeah it's tricky, there is a philosophical conundrum, I get your point.
renewiltord 4y ago
Don't apologize publicly. It's pointless. It only matters to people who spend their time on the Internet arguing over whether apologies are good (they never are). Apologize to people if you must, but never to the public.
unity1001 4y ago
Performative remorse of those responsible and forgiveness of them without the responsible having to do anything to remedy their deeds are killing the American society. People can do all kinds of evil deeds and misconduct, break their own principles and rules, and they say that they are sorry, and its all 'okay'.
- wahnfrieden 4y ago
  sounds like something far more structural is at play in that case
  - unity1001 4y ago
    Indeed. The ghost of the puritan christianity still seems to be plaguing the American society: 'Hard work' is still valued like how puritens valued it, and those who do not 'work hard' are seen as worthless. Which means that the poor, the homeless etc are all sinners and can be ignored. The religious behavior set continues in public discourse as well, with religious mentality of Christianity which teaches that Christians can do no wrong and all those who are not from their own flock are evil. Which is applied to their society and its affairs: The US is 'great' or at the worst, 'okay' even as the society crumbles, and all the targeted enemies of the US are 'horrible evildoers'. When the US does something, its 'okay', but when others do the same thing, its an 'atrocity' etc. In short, its likely the ghost of puriten christianity and its practice of exceptionalism that elevates itself whereas demeans, smears and makes enemies of all others by projecting all the evils to them.
    - wahnfrieden 4y ago
      Or just capitalism
      - unity1001 4y ago
        Oh but that is literally Puritan Christianity repurposed as a modern religion...
GuB-42 4y ago
Speaking of apologies, one of the best is from Octave from OVH when one of their datacenters caught fire, with the consequences you can imagine for customers who rented servers there. It has a short "I apologize" introduction, the rest is technical details about the situation, what is being done to resolve it, and giving credits to employees who are dealing with the problem. What I find appreciable is that Octave is not talking about his own person, he talks as the representative and leader of a company. The video: https://www.ovh.com/fr/images/sbg/index-en.html https://www.ovh.com/fr/images/sbg/index-en.html

113 points by mitchbob 4y ago

Jimmy Swaggart wants a word with you.

The same can be said for things like diversity statements. You know exactly what you are supposed to say and any deviation will be punished . It’s just a formality you have to perform correctly.

eastbound 4y ago
In other words, we tell lies, to people who pretend to believe them. Everyone lies and we know it, our companies have mottos and everyone knows they’re fluff, and we teach kids to “thrive in ambiguity”, which is a beautiful phrase I’ve found on a job offer and which I have found symptomatic of our economy. I still wonder what it was like to live in ex-RDA. Did people tell lies that others pretended to believe?
- chitowneats 4y ago
  ya hehe I had to be it's what reputations are made of, to some extent I feel bad for those who get f*** by it by this dumb game we woke westerners play where we say all the right shiboleths and so everyone likes us
  - Zanni 4y ago
    Note to down voters: this is a (relevant) direct quote from SBF's interview in Vox. [0] [0] https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23462333/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-cryptocurrency-effective-altruism-crypto-bahamas-philanthropy https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23462333/sam-bankman-frie...
    - drooby 4y ago
      Whoa, this guys is a straight up sociopath
      - nmz 4y ago
        Which would make him perfect CEO material too.
    - plugin-baby 4y ago
      Thanks! I had read it as poetry.
      - chitowneats 4y ago
        It's certainly poetic.
  - Sakos 4y ago
    > by this dumb game we woke westerners play where we say all the right shiboleths and so everyone likes us Unfortunately, the people who treat it like a game like SBF are the ones who make it in business and in politics. There's no need to have ethics if it's sufficient just to act like you do. Reminds me of Kyrsten Sinema who played the part until she had the job.
    - clnq 4y ago
      Related: https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-....
  - uxp100 4y ago
    I gotta say that removing the context from this sort of changes its meaning in a misleading way for those seeing it for the first time. It makes perfect sense in this context as well but some people have interpreted this as a sort of nihilism, but it’s actually an endorsement of pure utilitarianism, more or less. Which doesn’t make it better, my big take away from all the FTX stuff is that SBF and friends were just uh, not that smart, just dipshits losing other peoples money and thinking everything in life was as easy as impressing brainless VCs. (With some actual on purpose fraud mixed in as well, who knows)
    - chitowneats 4y ago
      > pure utilitarianism > a sort of nihilism The SBF saga is a great example of how easily the former degenerates into the latter. We're talking about someone who graduated MIT. He clearly has some amount of smarts and personal drive. "He's just a dipshit" is not an adequate explanation. Though, yeah, he ends up a dipshit at the end of the story (presumably).
      - jeffskiling 4y ago
- rqtwteye 4y ago
  “In other words, we tell lies, to people who pretend to believe them.” The same happens at corporations. When you are in planning meetings you often know the politically correct answer already. If you say it will actually take five times longer you are out of the inner circle. That although everybody knows that it will take that long. Seems the whole hierarchy is one big circle where everybody bullshits each other and knows it.
- inglor_cz 4y ago
  I wonder if a descent to full-blown Soviet "Vranyo" (brazen lying) can be prevented. As in: "They lie to us, we know they're lying, they know we know they're lying, but they keep lying to us, and we keep pretending to believe them." Pretty much the only brake pad on that machine is that capitalism actually requires at least some efficiency from the players, and a web of lies like that will destroy any institution. But I am far from certain.
  - eastbound 4y ago
    I often compare science environments to general environments. In science, if you’re wrong, there’s no pardon: Your rocket doesn’t land on the moon, so you gotta keep your speech clear, your expertise precise, and your reputation perfect. In speech environments, if you’re handwaving it and are dishonest, you win the market. Science environments are better suited for me, but I get bashed in general environments…
    - inglor_cz 4y ago
      There is science and science. Rocket science is notoriously unforgiving. Nutrition science is pretty much the opposite, a half-hearted attempt to make sense of "garbage in, garbage out". The difference is in, among others, loopback length. If something goes wrong during a rocket launch, the fireball is only seconds away. Not so much in food and health, where the consequences take decades and multiple causal factors are hard to disentangle.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    Orwell wrote this in a letter in 1944: "Everywhere the world movement seems to be in the direction of centralised economies which can be made to ‘work’ in an economic sense but which are not democratically organised and which tend to establish a caste system. With this go the horrors of emotional nationalism and a tendency to disbelieve in the existence of objective truth because all the facts have to fit in with the words and prophecies of some infallible fuhrer. Already history has in a sense ceased to exist, ie. there is no such thing as a history of our own times which could be universally accepted, and the exact sciences are endangered as soon as military necessity ceases to keep people up to the mark. Hitler can say that the Jews started the war, and if he survives that will become official history. He can’t say that two and two are five, because for the purposes of, say, ballistics they have to make four. But if the sort of world that I am afraid of arrives, a world of two or three great superstates which are unable to conquer one another, two and two could become five if the fuhrer wished it. That, so far as I can see, is the direction in which we are actually moving, though, of course, the process is reversible."
tenpies 4y ago
The problem is that a non-trivial segment of the population does believe it with zealous devotion. They've attended the diversity seminaries, taken the oaths, and there is no off-ramp for their faith. The other problem is politicians cannot differentiate between performative displays and actual values. The end result is that you see diversity quotas elevated above all other priorities and criteria.
- yanderekko 4y ago
  >The problem is that a non-trivial segment of the population does believe it with zealous devotion Yes, but the diversity statements are not meant to separate the ordained from the masses, it's to ensure that actual heretics (or just those who are not properly accultured to understand what constitutes a transgression of social justice etiquette) are filtered.

mjburgess 4y ago

Forgiveness as a kind of mourning makes sense, but is counter-intuitive. I think we've come to regard "forgiveness" as inevitably ending with reconsiliation. But perhaps, more often, it shouldnt. That is, forgiveness is how I see the other when I see them not as an enemy or friend, but as a tragic part of nature. I have moved on. Our ability to forgive has, perhaps, been distorted by the perception that it's an act of kindness. I think, rather, it's the most rutheless form of grief there is. Another insight from the article is apology as a kind of non-violent humilitation. And the idea that apology even as a cultural expectation is somewhat rare and somewhat contingent on the era. This, again, makes sense but feels counter-intutive. What would a society look like which forgives without apologies? Perhaps one much better at moving on, much better at focusing on outcomes rather than obsessing about status. Perhaps the "purpetrator" doesnt need to apologise, we can just forgive them and punish them at once. We punish not to humiliate as an act of vengence, but as a necessary step to a better outcome. Eg., firing a dangerous boss, breaking up with a partner, etc.

ehnto 4y ago
That is how I see forgiveness also, a letting go of the issue at hand, almost a delegation of the reconciliation to the other party. It's their problem to think over now. I have a past business partner who more or less, stole all our gear and fled. I let them know how I felt, but told them I wouldn't be actioning it any further than that. I let them know the social consequences of their actions were absolute, there's no way I'd treat them as a friend or work with them again, but I understood why they felt they needed to do it and I hope they find themselves in a better place.
weberer 4y ago
>We punish not to humiliate as an act of vengence No, I think that's exactly how the Twitter mob operates. These people treat politics as some sort of religious war.
- SoftTalker 4y ago
  Politics and religion aren't very far apart. In some parts of the world they are nearly the same thing. Elsewhere, the belief in deities is the main differentiator, and even there it can get blurry, based on how some supporters seem to worship their leaders almost as gods.

themaninthedark 4y ago

An apology is useless if it is not accompanied by a change in behavior. Actually, worse than useless as it is an insult. I know what I am doing is wrong but I am not changing. Large public apologies are performance art.

seydor 4y ago
Yes, and audiences love performance art. They don't even really hate the actor for what they did, they enjoy the vengeful feelings i guess. Everything is molded to please the public.
- banannaise 4y ago
  It's not the public who is pleased. It's the talking heads, the newsroom bosses, the politicians, the corporate officers. The people who can spread the message that the public is pleased, regardless of whether the public is actually pleased. And as long as the public is not incredibly angry, they'll mostly just quietly go along with it, because it's not worth fighting against. But they're not the source. It's manufactured forgiveness.
washadjeffmad 4y ago
Apologies don't necessarily imply wrongdoing. An apology can be issued to acknowledge inconvenience or understanding, or to indicate someone is being heard. You can apologize for not changing or for disagreeing.
- nmz 4y ago
  Example: "I'm sorry to say this but" ... Means you acknowledge the hurt saying something will cause but you still need to say it. because it needs to be said.
  - Mikeb85 4y ago
    No it means you pretend to apologise but are really talking more shit. Everyone knows the part before the "but" is passive aggressive window dressing and means nothing.

i_am_proteus 4y ago

Insincerity should be the expected outcome from bullying people via socioeconomic pressure into making public apologies. Forcing someone to make a public statement via explicit or implicit threat of loss of income or ostracization is playground politics for adults.

jmull 4y ago
If you make your money based on how popular you are, you are going to lose money, one way or another, if you start pissing off lots of people. Bullying and playground politics just isn't the right way to think about this. Kyrie, e.g., put the economic pressure on himself. Nike sells shoes. They don't want to pay him anymore because he can't sell shoes nearly as well now, and might impact their ability to sell shoes long-term. Regarding the Nets and NBA, Kyrie's many million dollar contract isn't exactly for playing basketball. It's for his ability to get lots and lots of people to want to watch basketball. When he pissed off a lot of people he doesn't do that very well, and his value as a basketball player drops.
- yanderekko 4y ago
  Yes, and? Again, this is just an explanation of why one should expect insincere apologies - because the apology is being made for financial reasons, not genuine contrition.
  - jmull 4y ago
    I don't disagree that insincere apologies usually don't work very well. My point is that the "socioeconomic pressure" in many cases has nothing to do "bullying," "threats," or "playground politics". It can be self-inflicted: If you lower your value to the people who give you money, they will no longer want to give you as much money.
    - savryn 4y ago
      Well if this take away from my spins // Which'll probably take away from my ends // Then I hope this take away from my sins

wernercd 4y ago

Apologizing to a mob never makes sense. You just make the other mob angry and most of the current mob doesn't think you're authentic anyways. Or, as the article says, "It was either not enough or, oh, my God, please stop.". Trying to placate a mob is pointless. Be authentic (apologize if you really mean it), otherwise stand your ground and stay still. The mob will move on eventually. They are fickle and easily distracted. If you stay still? they'll move on. If you dart around? You're a target for the pack. Let them find the next target.

ehnto 4y ago
A great way to think about any discussion on the public internet to be honest. Everything you say on twitter is to a mob, and within that mob is a very diverse group of people, not all of them working with the same perspective or even the same context and goals as you. There's that joke about using accidentally using Personality A with Friend Group B; with the modern social internet, you're talking to every friend group at the same time and I think that's why we have such defensive pretense, placation and weasel wording going on. You lose all nuance, and you also lose benefit of the doubt. I think that's what is missing on broadcast platforms like FB/Twitter et al, and why Discord has been such a hit. Discord gives you discrete friend groups, so you can form deeper more nuanced dialogues about topics over a long period of time.
_yb2s 4y ago
Exactly, this integrity and sincerity is what is missing with this stuff. These people are apologizing out of fear, not because they feel it’s the right thing to do.

mauriciolange 4y ago

https://web.archive.org/web/20221111171546/https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2022/11/14/the-case-against-the-twitter-apology-matthew-ichihashi-potts-forgiveness-danya-ruttenberg-on-repentance-and-repair https://web.archive.org/web/20221111171546/https://www.newyo...

mattgreenrocks 4y ago

Whoever figures out a secular distillation of the concept of grace is going to be very, very successful in community-building. The lack of it is painfully apparent, and it offers something to both the accused and the accusers. Now, whether people actually want that from others in these cases, or are merely enjoying the use of power a little too much, is another discussion.

seydor 4y ago
grace or forgiveness?
- tdehnel 4y ago
  Forgiveness: Making a big deal about how great you are for not judging someone, making it all about you. I forgive you. Grace: Getting on with your life and not letting yourself get caught up in someone else’s moral failings. You do you.
  - chasd00 4y ago
    I can see how forgiveness can be weaponized like that but to me forgiveness is only there to benefit the forgiver. Granted, getting good at forgiveness risks you just becoming a door mat. Similarly, Getting good at grace risks you becoming naive and ignorant to the world around you.
    - d4mi3n 4y ago
      How does this dynamic of grace vs forgiveness interact with genuine feelings of guilt? There are times in life where we (or people around us) fuck up. Genuine remorse occurs and receiving forgiveness can bring closure as it can signal that a relationship with someone is still there. I think assuming forgiveness is a one-way interaction may be true in some contexts, but not all.
giraffe_lady 4y ago
I genuinely don't think it's compatible with contemporary western morality that holds that actions are either valid expressions of self-actualization and so require no apology, or are transgressions for which no forgiveness is possible. The idea that regardless of a person's "right" to make a certain choice, an action can be so harmful that it cannot be corrected, but also that it can be forgiven is too far from how we think and live now.

logicalmonster 4y ago

Has anybody well-known ever used a phrase like "For my own personal safety, I apologize for XYZ transgression" when apologizing to a Twitter mob? Kind of curious how that simultaneous apology and subtle call-out might work.

JSchmoe 4y ago
That'd make no sense to do. The "Twitter mob" remains angry and now a few more people are annoyed that you openly gave a non-apology.
- logicalmonster 4y ago
  The reason I brought up that phrase is that Scott Adams of the Dilbert cartoon endorsed Hillary in 2016 using this exact language, despite actually liking Trump. > "So I’ve decided to endorse Hillary Clinton for President, for my personal safety." If I recall correctly, he says that merely that endorsement, however transparently fake it was, got a lot of people off of his back.
  - JSchmoe 4y ago
    Huh, people are weird!

seydor 4y ago

It's not a "culture" issue imho. The mainstream basically decided to promote those staged "apologies", signaling to other celebrities that they should act like that, and they did.

chitowneats 4y ago
What the mainstream promotes is culture. Contemporary culture at the very least.
- seydor 4y ago
  hey no, that may look like that in america, but even there it is not true, the deep cultural characteristics of americans (e.g. hard work) won't change if the media tells them so. Popular culture is not the whole of culture in general
  - chitowneats 4y ago
    I did not say it was the whole of culture. I said it was culture. In English, saying something "is" something does not mean it is only that, or that it is all of that.

sinoue 4y ago

Its cultural and Trump epitomized the worst of American sorry not sorry. That is why Twitter mob justice plays a role in accountability and creating hyped outrage.

eesmith 4y ago

> Whose P.R.-purposed apology was worse? Al Franken’s or Louis C.K.’s? ... At SorryWatch.com and @SorryWatch, Susan McCarthy and Marjorie Ingall have been Let's take a look at what they say about those two, at https://sorrywatch.com/al-and-louie/ https://sorrywatch.com/al-and-louie/ . Franken's first apology was a not-pology. The second is described as, on the whole, a good apology. As for Louis C.K.'s: "People! He never says he’s sorry! So many words, and none of them are “I’m sorry” or “I apologize”!" And from https://sorrywatch.com/a-roundup-of-good-celebrity-apologies/ https://sorrywatch.com/a-roundup-of-good-celebrity-apologies... : "Look, I’m feeling kinda demoralized by people thinking Louis CK apologized well, what with him not actually saying he was sorry. (As we note repeatedly here, REGRET IS NOT APOLOGY, chant it with me.) I don't see how the author of this piece connects Franken's apology to "performed remorse". How are we to conclude it wasn't an expression of real remorse?

nmz 4y ago
Weird, it seems the authors don't even know what an apology is or an i'm sorry is. Everyone can say "I'm Sorry" it means so many things that in reality it means nothing. Regret and admittance of wrongdoing is the point of an apology, it means the individual knows their actions were wrong, and they would take them back. That's much better than an "I'm Sorry", which usually means, "really wish you wouldn't feel so bad" or "lets move past this".
- eesmith 4y ago
  The "regret is not apology" seems to refer to a specific type of regret. That is, https://sorrywatch.com/regret-is-not-apology-karl/ https://sorrywatch.com/regret-is-not-apology-karl/ says: > Regret is all about you; apology is all about another person’s feelings. Regret stands alone; apology reaches out to someone else. Also, shut up with the whole “regret the controversy” business. That phrase just means, “I’m irked at other people.” Regret your actions, then apologize for them. Do not say you regret other people’s responses to your being an asshole. Note that it contains "regret" used two different ways. Your "admittance of wrongdoing" is part of "regret your actions", while that chant concerns "regret other people’s responses". You can see the book authors' "The Six Steps to a Good Apology" at https://sorrywatch.com/ https://sorrywatch.com/ . Your "knows their actions are wrong" is "2. Say specifically what you’re sorry FOR" and your "would take them back" is likely closest to "5. Explain the actions you’re taking to insure this won’t happen again." (See also https://sorrywatch.com/the-parts-of-a-good-apology/ https://sorrywatch.com/the-parts-of-a-good-apology/ .) Thing is, I don't think the author of the New Yorker piece really addresses the points of the book, but instead uses it as a stepping stone to a very different interpretation of the topic, and lumping the book into a lumpy mishmash of religion and Twitter mobs. Which that book ... doesn't seem to be about. The web site gives an example of a good apology that Lincoln gave to Grant, at https://sorrywatch.com/when-lincoln-was-wrong/ https://sorrywatch.com/when-lincoln-was-wrong/ , and commentary on Grant's poor apology for ordering the expulsion of Jews from the Department of Tennessee, followed by his actions which help make up for that apology.

politician 4y ago

As I scrolled down the article, my browser reduced the reading area down to ~6.8 lines of content rendered into a rectangle having an area of ~8 square inches. The rest of the screen filled itself with junk. If anyone from the New Yorker is reading, please tweak the breakpoints on the media queries for the 13" MacBook Air. :emoji-laughing-at-the-futility-of-such-an-ask:

chasd00 4y ago

the only winning move is not to play. If you find yourself at the receiving end of a fully motivated twitter mob the way out is waiting for the mob to find another target and then picking up the pieces.

jscipione 4y ago

f154hfds 4y ago

Forgiveness in the Bible is formalized as a cancelled debt: the act of forgiveness is when you decide to eat the cost of a debt owed (Matthew 18:21-35). I think forgiveness is mostly misunderstood by our society. It has several implications: 1. Forgiveness does not equate to trust or even reconciliation. If I lent you $1000 and you never paid me back, I might forgive your debt but will be much less inclined to trust you with my money in the future. 2. Forgiveness absolutely does not necessitate repentance of the perpetrator. In the Bible forgiveness is a necessity regardless of the situation because the Bible treats the inability of a Christian to forgive the ultimate hypocrisy (Matthew 6:14-15). 3. Wronging another person (or yourself - this might be far more common) does tangible harm to them. This harm is analogous to a financial debt owed. This debt is on the cosmic books so to speak: it's very real and must be dealt with either by forgiveness or retributive justice (or a combination of the two). Restorative justice is important but can't fix the original debt. 4. An apology no matter how sincere can't undo the debt either, it is usually impossible to make it right (unlike a financial debt which can be repaid). Society misses this at its own peril: forgiveness trumps apologies every time, this is the nature of wrongdoing. If anything we downplay how hard it is to make things right! As if a few well chosen words and humiliation could undo Will Smith's Slap? It can't work because it doesn't go back in time and change history to make the thing not happen! 5. Repentance makes it easier to forgive (it enables the victim and the perpetrator to meet in the middle), but it's always going to be hard to tell if repentance is genuine. See point 2.

SoftTalker 4y ago
> An apology no matter how sincere can't undo the debt either, it is usually impossible to make it right (unlike a financial debt which can be repaid). Often illustrated as "you can't un-ring a bell" You can sincerely regret having done something harmful, but rarely does that undo the harm.
int_19h 4y ago
> This debt is on the cosmic books so to speak: it's very real and must be dealt with either by forgiveness or retributive justice (or a combination of the two). Restorative justice is important but can't fix the original debt. Retributive justice can't fix the debt, either - it just makes more people hurt than before.

nmz 4y ago

I've always fantasized about a facebook like dirty laundry website. basically a place where people freely and anonymously perform slander and indicate all the wrongdoings of everyone. Not unlike what we have now, but organized. It would either completely break some people, or show how incredibly hypocritical mob justice is with their public shaming.

executive 4y ago
https://thedirty.com/ https://thedirty.com/
- nmz 4y ago
  This is pure internet gossip cancer... It's great. Now they just need to clean it up and be more facebook like and done.

thrown_22 4y ago

Funny how the literati have discovered that twitter is bad as soon as their friends no longer run it.

tsylba 4y ago

Once a media is accepted and known by the multitude it becomes performative, a spectacle where authenticity vanished preempted by new social rules. Beaudrillard's hyperreality describes the situation where we don't live in reality anymore but in the image of the reality we build, akin to an AI learning from data generated by another AI. It seems our current internet culture - heavily centralized, and universally used - is hyperreal, a performative space bound by rules of how to act, how to be accepted, what to say and not to say. In this kind of constructs I believe authenticity vanishes. I wonder how we might prevent this things to happen. I suspect it's linked with demography and popularity, something something Dunbar's number related.

user3939382 4y ago
> hyperreality describes the situation where we don't live in reality anymore but in the image of the reality we build This concept is almost tautological since the only conceivable alternative would be universal omniscience.
- erichocean 4y ago
  Eh? The Amish (for instance) don't live in hyperreality (by Beaudrillard's definition).
- tsylba 4y ago
  I might have add "upon itself". There is much to say about what is reality, and you can bring researcher like Hoffmann stating that we see of reality only what is good for our peak survival (don't need infrared, don't see infrared). Hyperreality is something else altogether. First, it's a common theme in postmodernist to state we live in a construct culturally accepted and ever evolving. Hyperreality states that we accept for reality layers that are objectively not, and make it "more real than real". The flavors of energy drinks (with weird names and chemically cultivated), porn for sex, Disney land as archetypal America, tv reality (which is everything but reality). Transposing the sign-value for the thing by itself. Words does not mean the thing that they use to mean but are reinterpreted upon this biased view of reality. The map is not the territory, the word are not the reality behind them. Media are more problematic because they are the message (see McLuhan), they are a space we live in (the water the fish flow in), not "reality" sense by our direct organ. But yeah it's tricky, there is a philosophical conundrum, I get your point.

renewiltord 4y ago

Don't apologize publicly. It's pointless. It only matters to people who spend their time on the Internet arguing over whether apologies are good (they never are). Apologize to people if you must, but never to the public.

unity1001 4y ago

Performative remorse of those responsible and forgiveness of them without the responsible having to do anything to remedy their deeds are killing the American society. People can do all kinds of evil deeds and misconduct, break their own principles and rules, and they say that they are sorry, and its all 'okay'.

wahnfrieden 4y ago
sounds like something far more structural is at play in that case
- unity1001 4y ago
  Indeed. The ghost of the puritan christianity still seems to be plaguing the American society: 'Hard work' is still valued like how puritens valued it, and those who do not 'work hard' are seen as worthless. Which means that the poor, the homeless etc are all sinners and can be ignored. The religious behavior set continues in public discourse as well, with religious mentality of Christianity which teaches that Christians can do no wrong and all those who are not from their own flock are evil. Which is applied to their society and its affairs: The US is 'great' or at the worst, 'okay' even as the society crumbles, and all the targeted enemies of the US are 'horrible evildoers'. When the US does something, its 'okay', but when others do the same thing, its an 'atrocity' etc. In short, its likely the ghost of puriten christianity and its practice of exceptionalism that elevates itself whereas demeans, smears and makes enemies of all others by projecting all the evils to them.
  - wahnfrieden 4y ago
    Or just capitalism
    - unity1001 4y ago
      Oh but that is literally Puritan Christianity repurposed as a modern religion...

GuB-42 4y ago

Speaking of apologies, one of the best is from Octave from OVH when one of their datacenters caught fire, with the consequences you can imagine for customers who rented servers there. It has a short "I apologize" introduction, the rest is technical details about the situation, what is being done to resolve it, and giving credits to employees who are dealing with the problem. What I find appreciable is that Octave is not talking about his own person, he talks as the representative and leader of a company. The video: https://www.ovh.com/fr/images/sbg/index-en.html https://www.ovh.com/fr/images/sbg/index-en.html