4 ms·

A general question: when someone says something offensive, the apology is often "We're sorry: we thought this was funny, but obviously it wasn't, so we've chang

A general question: when someone says something offensive, the apology is often "We're sorry: we thought this was funny, but obviously it wasn't, so we've changed it." This seems to get universally condemned, and lots of people argue that it's wrong to say "I'm sorry you're offended." But what are the alternatives? I suppose they could have said that they were deliberately sexist and hoped to hurt people's feelings, or something. I'm not sure. What--aside from groveling--do people want when they aren't satisfied with that kind of apology? It's scarily reminiscent of the way cults and authoritarian regimes function: it's not enough to confess a mistake. You have to confess your malice, too. (I wish I had some examples that weren't so fraught, but that's all I can think of: The Gulag Archipelago, various ex-Scientology memoirs, and lots of interactions with political correctness.) For what it's worth, I agree that the copy was lame, and the sponsors were right to disassociate themselves. I'm just not sure it's a mortal sin to make a tacky joke and then apologize.

cjbprime 15y ago
The alternative is to realize why it was offensive instead of just that people got offended in some abstract sense that is unrelated to anything you can comprehend. For bonus points, further show enough empathy that you realize that what you said now offends you, too, culminating in some kind of "Damn, I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that" apology.
- toomuchtodo 15y ago
  And what if it doesn't offend them? Just because it offends you doesn't mean it should condemn them. Men like women. Men are, speaking factually, the extreme majority in the tech industry. Don't be shocked if your values don't match those of others.
  - nirvdrum 15y ago
    Upvoted. And I just wanted to give some encouragement. It's become commonplace here to get downvoted not because you're belligerent or off-topic, but simply because you hold an opposing viewpoint. Please don't let that discourage you from participating in conversations here.
    - toomuchtodo 15y ago
      Thank you! I don't feel like I'm being sexist at all. Scoot didn't say "HEH! We have naked women bringing you beer!" They said "We're having women server you beer". This is a perk for some men. What's the problem? Women coders/developers are sexist and don't want to be served beer by women? So be it. I, as a man, will happily serve those women who feel offended in the same garb the women will be serving men.
      - natrius 15y ago
        It's not an inclusive way to advertise an event. Making a minority in a community feel like an event isn't really intended for them is bad.
        nirvdrum 15y ago
        Honestly, when these sorts of things happen, I'd love for every man in the world to just shut up for a minute. I have a hard time stomaching this whacked out form chivalry where men somehow have to fight on behalf of women because they're unable to defend themselves. I understand it's of far purer intent, but it seems just as sexist to me. Actually, it seems worse because it has a tinge of hypocrisy to it. I'd much rather get a woman's reaction to it in an environment where she feels safe to speak her mind (and the Internet provides some pretty good avenues for this).
        marshray 15y ago
        I've been to a tech conference that started with a few women in attendance and they'd basically all walked out by mid-afternoon. It was a tech conference with alcohol like this one. As the day went on, the men were getting drunker and drunker. Some women left out of concern for their personal safety. How's that for a woman's reaction?
        nirvdrum 15y ago
        Honest and helpful. Thanks.
  - cjbprime 15y ago
    I don't think I understand your point, but to be clear: I'm a man, and I like women. My like of women extends to not wanting them to be treated like beer-servants and told that they aren't welcome as equals at a coding event, because it would make me feel awful if someone did those things to me. Empathy allows you to try to work out how something might feel from someone else's perspective, and is what should be used when trying to work out how to apologize for inadvertent offense.
    - dudeguy999 15y ago
      I go to Octoberfest events where sexy female beer servers are advertised. A lot of women seem to attend as well.
      - msbarnett 15y ago
        That Oktoberfest isn't an industry event catering to professionals is no small difference.
        dudeguy999 15y ago
        Is it possible to have a programming event with an unprofessional attitude, or is that not allowed anymore?
        msbarnett 15y ago
        It's possible to have any kind of event you want. But you are not immune to the consequences of your actions. It should be no surprise that many professionals do not enjoy having their industry associated in the public's mind with juvenile, unprofessional antics and socially unacceptable behaviours, and will be quick to tell you so.
    - toomuchtodo 15y ago
      This is my problem with this issue in general. They are not beer servants. They are workers being paid to do a job.Its an event where women are paid to bring you a beverage. Will you rally against Friday's, Hooter's, and Buffalo Wild Wings next? I have empathy; I also understand that you don't have to work at a job bringing beer to coders if you don't want to.
  - Czarnian 15y ago
    You are correct. Most men like women. However, there is a time and place for men to express their admiration for women. An event like this (as represented to prospective sponsors) is neither.
  - Symmetry 15y ago
    Maybe this can help explain. My recent ex-girlfriend is female, but is also bisexual and so likes women almost as much as I do. She was perfectly happy to comment on the attractiveness of the waitstaff to me (male or female), and appreciated when I did likewise to her. She'd be perfectly fine with a social event advertising attractive female waiters. I think she might even have been happy about the prospect of attractive female waitstaff at a hackathon too (she's also a programmer). Listing the staff under the category of "Women" though, with the implication that these were going to be the only women at the event. And that would really piss her off.
- byrneseyeview 15y ago
  Paul Graham has a nice essay on this topic: http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html Things that are "offensive" tend to change a lot, compared to e.g. things that are "incorrect." I've found that the best mental model is that they're intellectual allergies. I wouldn't knowingly serve someone a dish he was allergic to, and I'd apologize if I did it by accident, but I wouldn't feel ashamed. And my mental model would have to a running list of common allergies, not an over-arching theory of misfiring immune system reactions. I mean, let's try this out: can you tell me why you, personally, are offended by depictions of The Prophet? What about a picture of two men holding hands? Or an insinuation that the Pharaoh is not, in fact, a god? There's just too big a cognitive burden to reverse-engineer everybody else's cultural or intellectual allergies. I'd prefer to work around them.
jballanc 15y ago
There is a difference between "We thought it was funny. We were wrong." and "We are sorry you were offended." The former makes the person in bad taste the responsible party. The later makes the "offended" person the responsible party. When you say "We are sorry you were offended..." many people will read in to that "...but if it weren't for you being offended there would be nothing wrong with this." A simple choice of words can make all the difference in the world.
- reinhardt 15y ago
  "...but if it weren't for you being offended there would be nothing wrong with this." Is this statement even controversial? The only reason someone issues an apology (honest or not) is because one or more others were offended. If nobody is offended, by definition there is nothing wrong with it.
  - npc 15y ago
    So if I say something shockingly racist, but the only people around to hear it are my shockingly racist buddies, then it's totally OK because no-one is offended?
    - byrneseyeview 15y ago
      I'm late to this, but: yes. Or rather, if you say something really offensive, like "Women should be allowed to read books, or even leave the house without covering their faces," it's not offensive because you probably aren't saying it in front of a Shia cleric. If you say something that's intellectually unfashionable, but the people you talk to are unphased, I just don't understand the case for considering that a bad thing. Who is the wronged party? How were they harmed? What's society's interest in redressing this, and what's our mechanism for doing so?
  - jballanc 15y ago
    What you're describing is moral relativism. If I kill someone that everyone hates, is that wrong? If I kill a homeless person that had no friends and no family so nobody notices they're dead, is that wrong? The real question here is would you stand in front of the mirror, with no one around, and say to yourself "The women at this conference are a great perk!" without feeling bad? It's tempting to think "I have these views about blacks/hispanics/asians/women/etc., but I know how to control my reactions and keep my mouth shut." The problem is that people communicate as much subconsciously as they do consciously.
harryh 15y ago
The phrasing of the squoot apology (and other similar ones) does not take responsibility for the action. It's a non-apology. It doesn't admit that they were offensive but instead implies that it was only bad that others were offended. It's about the placement of blame on the offended party instead of taking responsibility. GOOD: I'm sorry that I hurt you when I punched you in the face. BAD: I'm sorry that you were hurt when I punched you in the face. The latter distances the puncher from the hurt in an unacceptable way.
rickmb 15y ago
Those are weasel words, non-apologies that only confirm the notion that the people who wrote this are actually sexist a-holes. It's an underhanded way of blaming the people that are offended rather than genuinely apologizing for doing something offensive. "We realize this was wrong and offensive, and we are very sorry" would have been sufficient. No groveling needed. Instead, they chose to blame the offended parties and preface their "apology" with lame excuses. It's neither genuine nor an apology.
- electromagnetic 15y ago
  Look at when comedians say something offensive. They either realise they went too far, or they stand by their joke. I've never personally heard a situation where a comedian causes mass offence and weaselly apologizes saying he's sorry but wishes his audience would grow up. Because it doesn't happen, because they're in the business of tastefully offending people. The problem is that douches like the guys running Boston API Jam have no social connection with women that they can't even understand why normal people are offended by this.
  - spindritf 15y ago
    These non-apologies are pretty common from politicians ("Mistakes were made") to comedians (Adam Carolla: "I'm sorry my comments were hurtful. I'm a comedian, not a politician.") And there's a reason for that. It this case it doesn't apply, it was just a lame attempt at humor. But in other cases there are whole organizations involved, with funding and lawyers and many of those organizations are simply bullies who manufacture controversies to show their importance (black hole/black hoe thing, Tracy Morgan offending some group). The best response would be to stand up to the bully: ramp up the joke, go further, but usually it would hurt too many bystanders who just happen to be in the group the bully pretends to represent or isn't feasible for other reasons so bullied public figures go with the next best thing -- a non-apology.
gyardley 15y ago
There's a huge difference between "we're sorry for our offensive behavior" and "we're sorry you were offended by our behavior." The first admits you've done something legitimately wrong; the second only says that others were offended, perhaps illegitimately, and that wasn't your intent. The first is sorry for the action; the second, the reaction. In this particular case, all they have to do is say "We're sorry - we were being sexist. We've removed the sexist language and we won't do it again." If they want to clarify, they could say they were being unthinkingly, not deliberately sexist, which is almost surely the case.
mikeryan 15y ago
Jon Stewart had a rant on this not to long ago as Fox News tried to apologize for Rush Limbaugh's comments as "he's just an entertainer". His statement was that there are repercussions to comedy no one gets to hide behind that the thin veil and say whatever they like without consequence. Here's what I expect from these guys. Man up, take your licks and don't do it again. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-march-13-2012/the-vulgar-games http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-march-13-2012/the-vulg... Its a relevant diatribe
ajross 15y ago
It's not a mortal sin. But it's a sin, and should be punished. The "point" here isn't to elicit an apology, it's to make sure that everyone knows that the behavior is not acceptable and will not be tolerated. The condemnation is punishment, and a disincentive to do this in the future. So no, there's really nothing to be said after making a sexist joke. You made a sexist joke, and everyone knows it. All alternatives are bad ones from the sexist joker's point of view. But obviously some are less bad than others. This isn't christianity. There's no foolproof path to redemption by accepting Gloria Steinem as your personal savior. Just sit down and take it like, er, a man.
lysol 15y ago
They could demonstrate that they understand why this was offensive instead of the obtuse, head-patting response. "We now understand that _____ is offensive to _____ because of ____. In turn, it has _____ effects on our industry. Sorry!" It's not really that hard if you have a capacity for basic cognitive reasoning. What my main point is, a person put up a bottled apology that follows all the rules, but it doesn't correct the behavior. It's a fix for the symptom, not the underlying problem.
electromagnetic 15y ago
The reason why people aren't satisfied with that kind of apology is because it isn't an apology it's a "Oh we're being forced to say this, but we still think we're right and its funny and you're just a douche for complaining." The whole point is that they're so totally out of touch with the real world that they don't even get that they demeaned women and worse they don't even understand how. It's not even that it was a joke, it's that they were actually selling it as a perk along with massages to "take a break and unwind" and by their apparent hiring policy for their waitress staff, I'm guessing the masseuses are likely <25 year old Asian women.
temphn 15y ago
Mr. Byrnes, it is a little more complicated than that. Many of the people angry about this incident will, in another context, back up someone like Richard Dawkins when he offends. Dawkins happens to be one of my favorite authors, but he is quite provocative. And Heroku advertises the Dawkins Foundation as a success story: http://success.heroku.com/dawkins-foundation The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (RDFRS) supports scientific education and advances critical thinking and an evidence-based understanding of the natural world, in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and human suffering. The foundation’s namesake and founder, Richard Dawkins, is a scientist and best-selling author of works including The God Delusion, The Selfish Gene, and The Blind Watchmaker. As an objective fact, The God Delusion is surely a book that many millions of people around the world are on the record as finding "offensive" [1,2,3]. So the issue is really not whether a statement is offensive or not, or how the apology is phrased. It is whether the group that is offended has the power to force an apology. [1] http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/65603-part-god-delusion-did-you-find-2.html http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/65603... [2] http://richarddawkins.net/articles/628795-duking-it-out-over-the-god-delusion http://richarddawkins.net/articles/628795-duking-it-out-over... [3] http://mattgrube.com/seminary-writings/dawkins-god-delusion-and-the-pentateuch/ http://mattgrube.com/seminary-writings/dawkins-god-delusion-...
- gyardley 15y ago
  Not at all. When deciding whether you think someone should apologize or not for an action, the issue is not whether the party they offended can force an apology, it's whether you believe that person's action was wrong. Many of the people angry about this incident believe that sexism is wrong, but advocating atheism in Dawkins' manner is not wrong. Therefore they believe the sexist should apologize, and Dawkins should not. Their opinions are consistent, and it has nothing to do with force.
  - temphn 15y ago
    Many of the people angry about this incident believe that sexism is wrong, but advocating atheism in Dawkins' manner is not wrong. Right. However, the group of people who are against sexism are objectively much more culturally and economically powerful than the group of people who are against Dawkins. Heroku doesn't fear any lost business from supporting Dawkins, but it dropped Sqoot like a hot potato. You could quantify this by comparing a Facebook-based StatusRank for the anti-Sqoots vs. the anti-Dawkins. The former group will have much higher socioeconomic status than the latter. Harvard graduates are much more likely to believe "sexism not ok, Dawkins ok" and high school dropouts are much more likely to believe the reverse. That is, sexism is "not ok" and Dawkins is "ok" in this thread because these are the beliefs shared by the most powerful people in society. This has little to do with right and wrong and much to do with socioeconomic status.

cjbprime 15y ago

The alternative is to realize why it was offensive instead of just that people got offended in some abstract sense that is unrelated to anything you can comprehend. For bonus points, further show enough empathy that you realize that what you said now offends you, too, culminating in some kind of "Damn, I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that" apology.

toomuchtodo 15y ago
And what if it doesn't offend them? Just because it offends you doesn't mean it should condemn them. Men like women. Men are, speaking factually, the extreme majority in the tech industry. Don't be shocked if your values don't match those of others.
- nirvdrum 15y ago
  Upvoted. And I just wanted to give some encouragement. It's become commonplace here to get downvoted not because you're belligerent or off-topic, but simply because you hold an opposing viewpoint. Please don't let that discourage you from participating in conversations here.
  - toomuchtodo 15y ago
    Thank you! I don't feel like I'm being sexist at all. Scoot didn't say "HEH! We have naked women bringing you beer!" They said "We're having women server you beer". This is a perk for some men. What's the problem? Women coders/developers are sexist and don't want to be served beer by women? So be it. I, as a man, will happily serve those women who feel offended in the same garb the women will be serving men.
    - natrius 15y ago
      It's not an inclusive way to advertise an event. Making a minority in a community feel like an event isn't really intended for them is bad.
      - nirvdrum 15y ago
        Honestly, when these sorts of things happen, I'd love for every man in the world to just shut up for a minute. I have a hard time stomaching this whacked out form chivalry where men somehow have to fight on behalf of women because they're unable to defend themselves. I understand it's of far purer intent, but it seems just as sexist to me. Actually, it seems worse because it has a tinge of hypocrisy to it. I'd much rather get a woman's reaction to it in an environment where she feels safe to speak her mind (and the Internet provides some pretty good avenues for this).
        marshray 15y ago
        I've been to a tech conference that started with a few women in attendance and they'd basically all walked out by mid-afternoon. It was a tech conference with alcohol like this one. As the day went on, the men were getting drunker and drunker. Some women left out of concern for their personal safety. How's that for a woman's reaction?
        nirvdrum 15y ago
        Honest and helpful. Thanks.
- cjbprime 15y ago
  I don't think I understand your point, but to be clear: I'm a man, and I like women. My like of women extends to not wanting them to be treated like beer-servants and told that they aren't welcome as equals at a coding event, because it would make me feel awful if someone did those things to me. Empathy allows you to try to work out how something might feel from someone else's perspective, and is what should be used when trying to work out how to apologize for inadvertent offense.
  - dudeguy999 15y ago
    I go to Octoberfest events where sexy female beer servers are advertised. A lot of women seem to attend as well.
    - msbarnett 15y ago
      That Oktoberfest isn't an industry event catering to professionals is no small difference.
      - dudeguy999 15y ago
        Is it possible to have a programming event with an unprofessional attitude, or is that not allowed anymore?
        msbarnett 15y ago
        It's possible to have any kind of event you want. But you are not immune to the consequences of your actions. It should be no surprise that many professionals do not enjoy having their industry associated in the public's mind with juvenile, unprofessional antics and socially unacceptable behaviours, and will be quick to tell you so.
  - toomuchtodo 15y ago
    This is my problem with this issue in general. They are not beer servants. They are workers being paid to do a job.Its an event where women are paid to bring you a beverage. Will you rally against Friday's, Hooter's, and Buffalo Wild Wings next? I have empathy; I also understand that you don't have to work at a job bringing beer to coders if you don't want to.
- Czarnian 15y ago
  You are correct. Most men like women. However, there is a time and place for men to express their admiration for women. An event like this (as represented to prospective sponsors) is neither.
- Symmetry 15y ago
  Maybe this can help explain. My recent ex-girlfriend is female, but is also bisexual and so likes women almost as much as I do. She was perfectly happy to comment on the attractiveness of the waitstaff to me (male or female), and appreciated when I did likewise to her. She'd be perfectly fine with a social event advertising attractive female waiters. I think she might even have been happy about the prospect of attractive female waitstaff at a hackathon too (she's also a programmer). Listing the staff under the category of "Women" though, with the implication that these were going to be the only women at the event. And that would really piss her off.
byrneseyeview 15y ago
Paul Graham has a nice essay on this topic: http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html Things that are "offensive" tend to change a lot, compared to e.g. things that are "incorrect." I've found that the best mental model is that they're intellectual allergies. I wouldn't knowingly serve someone a dish he was allergic to, and I'd apologize if I did it by accident, but I wouldn't feel ashamed. And my mental model would have to a running list of common allergies, not an over-arching theory of misfiring immune system reactions. I mean, let's try this out: can you tell me why you, personally, are offended by depictions of The Prophet? What about a picture of two men holding hands? Or an insinuation that the Pharaoh is not, in fact, a god? There's just too big a cognitive burden to reverse-engineer everybody else's cultural or intellectual allergies. I'd prefer to work around them.

jballanc 15y ago

There is a difference between "We thought it was funny. We were wrong." and "We are sorry you were offended." The former makes the person in bad taste the responsible party. The later makes the "offended" person the responsible party. When you say "We are sorry you were offended..." many people will read in to that "...but if it weren't for you being offended there would be nothing wrong with this." A simple choice of words can make all the difference in the world.

reinhardt 15y ago
"...but if it weren't for you being offended there would be nothing wrong with this." Is this statement even controversial? The only reason someone issues an apology (honest or not) is because one or more others were offended. If nobody is offended, by definition there is nothing wrong with it.
- npc 15y ago
  So if I say something shockingly racist, but the only people around to hear it are my shockingly racist buddies, then it's totally OK because no-one is offended?
  - byrneseyeview 15y ago
    I'm late to this, but: yes. Or rather, if you say something really offensive, like "Women should be allowed to read books, or even leave the house without covering their faces," it's not offensive because you probably aren't saying it in front of a Shia cleric. If you say something that's intellectually unfashionable, but the people you talk to are unphased, I just don't understand the case for considering that a bad thing. Who is the wronged party? How were they harmed? What's society's interest in redressing this, and what's our mechanism for doing so?
- jballanc 15y ago
  What you're describing is moral relativism. If I kill someone that everyone hates, is that wrong? If I kill a homeless person that had no friends and no family so nobody notices they're dead, is that wrong? The real question here is would you stand in front of the mirror, with no one around, and say to yourself "The women at this conference are a great perk!" without feeling bad? It's tempting to think "I have these views about blacks/hispanics/asians/women/etc., but I know how to control my reactions and keep my mouth shut." The problem is that people communicate as much subconsciously as they do consciously.

harryh 15y ago

The phrasing of the squoot apology (and other similar ones) does not take responsibility for the action. It's a non-apology. It doesn't admit that they were offensive but instead implies that it was only bad that others were offended. It's about the placement of blame on the offended party instead of taking responsibility. GOOD: I'm sorry that I hurt you when I punched you in the face. BAD: I'm sorry that you were hurt when I punched you in the face. The latter distances the puncher from the hurt in an unacceptable way.

rickmb 15y ago

Those are weasel words, non-apologies that only confirm the notion that the people who wrote this are actually sexist a-holes. It's an underhanded way of blaming the people that are offended rather than genuinely apologizing for doing something offensive. "We realize this was wrong and offensive, and we are very sorry" would have been sufficient. No groveling needed. Instead, they chose to blame the offended parties and preface their "apology" with lame excuses. It's neither genuine nor an apology.

electromagnetic 15y ago
Look at when comedians say something offensive. They either realise they went too far, or they stand by their joke. I've never personally heard a situation where a comedian causes mass offence and weaselly apologizes saying he's sorry but wishes his audience would grow up. Because it doesn't happen, because they're in the business of tastefully offending people. The problem is that douches like the guys running Boston API Jam have no social connection with women that they can't even understand why normal people are offended by this.
- spindritf 15y ago
  These non-apologies are pretty common from politicians ("Mistakes were made") to comedians (Adam Carolla: "I'm sorry my comments were hurtful. I'm a comedian, not a politician.") And there's a reason for that. It this case it doesn't apply, it was just a lame attempt at humor. But in other cases there are whole organizations involved, with funding and lawyers and many of those organizations are simply bullies who manufacture controversies to show their importance (black hole/black hoe thing, Tracy Morgan offending some group). The best response would be to stand up to the bully: ramp up the joke, go further, but usually it would hurt too many bystanders who just happen to be in the group the bully pretends to represent or isn't feasible for other reasons so bullied public figures go with the next best thing -- a non-apology.

gyardley 15y ago

There's a huge difference between "we're sorry for our offensive behavior" and "we're sorry you were offended by our behavior." The first admits you've done something legitimately wrong; the second only says that others were offended, perhaps illegitimately, and that wasn't your intent. The first is sorry for the action; the second, the reaction. In this particular case, all they have to do is say "We're sorry - we were being sexist. We've removed the sexist language and we won't do it again." If they want to clarify, they could say they were being unthinkingly, not deliberately sexist, which is almost surely the case.

mikeryan 15y ago

Jon Stewart had a rant on this not to long ago as Fox News tried to apologize for Rush Limbaugh's comments as "he's just an entertainer". His statement was that there are repercussions to comedy no one gets to hide behind that the thin veil and say whatever they like without consequence. Here's what I expect from these guys. Man up, take your licks and don't do it again. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-march-13-2012/the-vulgar-games http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-march-13-2012/the-vulg... Its a relevant diatribe

ajross 15y ago

It's not a mortal sin. But it's a sin, and should be punished. The "point" here isn't to elicit an apology, it's to make sure that everyone knows that the behavior is not acceptable and will not be tolerated. The condemnation is punishment, and a disincentive to do this in the future. So no, there's really nothing to be said after making a sexist joke. You made a sexist joke, and everyone knows it. All alternatives are bad ones from the sexist joker's point of view. But obviously some are less bad than others. This isn't christianity. There's no foolproof path to redemption by accepting Gloria Steinem as your personal savior. Just sit down and take it like, er, a man.

lysol 15y ago

They could demonstrate that they understand why this was offensive instead of the obtuse, head-patting response. "We now understand that _____ is offensive to _____ because of ____. In turn, it has _____ effects on our industry. Sorry!" It's not really that hard if you have a capacity for basic cognitive reasoning. What my main point is, a person put up a bottled apology that follows all the rules, but it doesn't correct the behavior. It's a fix for the symptom, not the underlying problem.

electromagnetic 15y ago

The reason why people aren't satisfied with that kind of apology is because it isn't an apology it's a "Oh we're being forced to say this, but we still think we're right and its funny and you're just a douche for complaining." The whole point is that they're so totally out of touch with the real world that they don't even get that they demeaned women and worse they don't even understand how. It's not even that it was a joke, it's that they were actually selling it as a perk along with massages to "take a break and unwind" and by their apparent hiring policy for their waitress staff, I'm guessing the masseuses are likely <25 year old Asian women.

temphn 15y ago

Mr. Byrnes, it is a little more complicated than that. Many of the people angry about this incident will, in another context, back up someone like Richard Dawkins when he offends. Dawkins happens to be one of my favorite authors, but he is quite provocative. And Heroku advertises the Dawkins Foundation as a success story: http://success.heroku.com/dawkins-foundation The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (RDFRS) supports scientific education and advances critical thinking and an evidence-based understanding of the natural world, in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and human suffering. The foundation’s namesake and founder, Richard Dawkins, is a scientist and best-selling author of works including The God Delusion, The Selfish Gene, and The Blind Watchmaker. As an objective fact, The God Delusion is surely a book that many millions of people around the world are on the record as finding "offensive" [1,2,3]. So the issue is really not whether a statement is offensive or not, or how the apology is phrased. It is whether the group that is offended has the power to force an apology. [1] http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/65603-part-god-delusion-did-you-find-2.html http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/65603... [2] http://richarddawkins.net/articles/628795-duking-it-out-over-the-god-delusion http://richarddawkins.net/articles/628795-duking-it-out-over... [3] http://mattgrube.com/seminary-writings/dawkins-god-delusion-and-the-pentateuch/ http://mattgrube.com/seminary-writings/dawkins-god-delusion-...

gyardley 15y ago
Not at all. When deciding whether you think someone should apologize or not for an action, the issue is not whether the party they offended can force an apology, it's whether you believe that person's action was wrong. Many of the people angry about this incident believe that sexism is wrong, but advocating atheism in Dawkins' manner is not wrong. Therefore they believe the sexist should apologize, and Dawkins should not. Their opinions are consistent, and it has nothing to do with force.
- temphn 15y ago
  Many of the people angry about this incident believe that sexism is wrong, but advocating atheism in Dawkins' manner is not wrong. Right. However, the group of people who are against sexism are objectively much more culturally and economically powerful than the group of people who are against Dawkins. Heroku doesn't fear any lost business from supporting Dawkins, but it dropped Sqoot like a hot potato. You could quantify this by comparing a Facebook-based StatusRank for the anti-Sqoots vs. the anti-Dawkins. The former group will have much higher socioeconomic status than the latter. Harvard graduates are much more likely to believe "sexism not ok, Dawkins ok" and high school dropouts are much more likely to believe the reverse. That is, sexism is "not ok" and Dawkins is "ok" in this thread because these are the beliefs shared by the most powerful people in society. This has little to do with right and wrong and much to do with socioeconomic status.