10 ms·

This is good, and I like it, but I wonder if we're not painting this in too much black-and-white. It's certainly possible to feel sorry that you expressed your

This is good, and I like it, but I wonder if we're not painting this in too much black-and-white. It's certainly possible to feel sorry that you expressed your opinions in ways that others found offensive, without feeling sorry you had those opinions. In this case you are really sorry about your choice of words, not the intent of your message. That's okay. It doesn't have to be one way or the other. I'm not going to try to defend these bozos, so let's try some crazy made-up example. For instance, I might have an opinion that we should bring back slavery. A totally offensive opinion, yes, but dammit, I'm entitled to have it. In this case I very well may be sorry that I brought it up on MLK day, or that I interjected it in your discussion about feeding the poor, but I'm not really sorry for feeling the way I do. That's okay -- the part about differentiating between being sorry for being rude and being sorry for ideas, not the part about supporting slavery. People should never have to be sorry for expressing their opinions, only expressing them poorly. We need to make sure we are not trying to tell people how to think. We can challenge them, call them out, ask them questions, demand an apology for their being rude or offensive, yes, but we change people's thinking by gentle persuasion, not by public mockery or lynch mobs. If we're not careful, the only thing we're going to teach misogynistic youngsters is to bullshit on the net better. And that's not good for anybody. That's why the apology was weak -- because it was for the wrong reasons, shame instead of understanding. (And I don't think beating them up in public further is going to do much good. In fact, I think we've long past the point of actually doing something useful with this story.) Or to put this in a business context, it's okay to have policies people don't like, and it's certainly appropriate to apologize if you've expressed your policies in a way that offended people. But it's not okay for a mob to dictate to you what your policies should be. They're two different things.

brudgers 15y ago
>"the part about differentiating between being sorry for being rude and being sorry for ideas, not the part about supporting slavery." An apology for being rude is in the form, "I apologize for being rude." It is not of the form, "I apologize, if someone was offended by my rudeness." "No harm, no foul," does not apply to apologies. When I truly apologize, it is not because I have offended someone else. It is because I have offended myself by not holding myself to my own standards. That is why I may find myself apologizing to you when you have taken no offense.
kaens 15y ago
I think the driving point, which you allude to is that apologies should be honest. There's a minor point in there somewhere about how wording apologies in terms of the receiver-of-offense is a common tactic for people who care most about what the average person thinks of them. In this case, I can just barely see this being done by someone who was totally aware of how what they posted sounds, but forgot that the context that might allow them to make that joke, amongst people where it would be obvious that it was intended as a jab at a stereotype that all parties thought shouldn't exist, does not exist where it was posted. And then also hit a bit of a panic mode and put up a sheepish apology like that. I know enough people that have actually done things similar to that. Not because they didn't understand the issues, but because they were distractable, burst-of-extroversion, nerdy younger folk who tended to forget here and there that the reality bubble they were in was not a universal one, and didn't know how to own up to a mistake well. I absolutely agree with you about the right to opinion, and that people should not need to apologize for holding one. On the other hand, I do not think that those people have the right to have those opinions respected, and if they're especially ridiculous -- bringing back slavery, or the moon being made of conspiracy, for example -- and they're being expressed publicly and vocally, I do not think that those people have the right to not have their opinions called out in a confrontational manner. Should a person be disrespected for holding a ridiculously offensive opinion? No. A person gets disrespected for actions related to that opinion.
- DanielBMarkham 15y ago
  Agreed. Interesting sidebar here about John Nash, the famous mathematician. Nash, as you may know, suffered from what was probably paranoid schizophrenia. He had the most severe delusions which crippled his work. Later in life he managed to get along. After watching the movie I did a little research. As I understood it, Nash basically said that the delusions never went away, and he really didn't stop believing in them, but he learned to live with them and express them in a way that allowed his life to continue. He felt that either way could be true -- the things he suspected or the reality others descried to him. Therefore it was inappropriate to make a big deal out of it. He kept the same useless and perhaps personally dangerous opinions, but he learned to adjust his actions so that he could continue being a functioning part of society. Very interesting outcome. I think you only get there by encouraging people, not by shaming or ostracizing them. It could have worked out very differently for Nash.
hullibu 15y ago
In the case of wanting to bring back slavery, you'd be unable to successfully apologize. You may as well tell people that Hitler was your father and you were proud of him in that case, because you'll never be totally forgiven. At some point, it might be best to give your best apology as stated in the post, but assume that you will not be able to recover from the leg down your throat.
- kaens 15y ago
  Part of his point, I think, is that holding an opinion does not harm anyone. Would it be an offensive opinion? Yes. Are you right that there are a bunch of people who would be very angry about it? Yes. And that those people would likely never forgive someone who thought slavery should be brought back? Yes. There's also nothing to forgive the person with the offensive opinion for, other than offending someone. I don't think that the opinion-holder would have a right to not have that offense expressed, and I don't think people should have the right to hold and express any opinion with the expectation that no one will express offense, but I also don't think people have the right to not be offended.
  - hullibu 15y ago
    I believe in freedom of opinion and speech, but I also believe in freedom of sense. Believing that slavery is good is not only a generally offensive position, but it is an opinion that implies poor morals. Therefore not only in general company is expressing such an opinion a poor choice if one wishes to be socially accepted, but having the opinion itself is an abomination. Being easily offended is not a good thing. And anything that divides for the purpose of uniting, like political correctness, enforced diversity, etc. is suspect because it can annoy or hurt a group, even if that group is in a power or majority position. And people have the right to be offended or not offended. A morally corrupt person has the right to hang out in the Hall of Evil if they would like. That is freedom. But the purpose of the original post being discussed is that there is a way to apologize, and for that matter a reason to apologize. I personally think the apology was warranted. But, in the case of wanting to bring back slavery, I just don't think you can defend it as a moral opinion that should be aired. Even though I wouldn't outlaw the opinion, that doesn't stop me from strongly suggesting it is a bad idea and a sign of antisocial foolishness.
samth 15y ago
> For instance, I might have an opinion that we should bring back slavery. A totally offensive opinion, yes, but dammit, I'm entitled to have it. I think this is confusing two very different things. You are "entitled" to have this opinion in that (a) you shouldn't be locked in prison for stating this opinion and (b) I am not allowed to beat you up for having this opinion. However, that opinion is wrong. You should stop having it, and if you express it at work you will and should be fired. I think this is exactly analogous to this case. Sqoot could have held a successful hackathon if they didn't display their sexism in their ad copy, but the root problem is the sexism, not the ad copy. That's why the apology rubs people the wrong way.
- kyberias 15y ago
  > However, that opinion is wrong. You should stop having it, and if you express it at work you will and should be fired. I think this opinion is wrong. If one expresses his opinion about slavery, he should not be fired. Now that you had this wrong opinion about opinions, should you be fired? From work? From Hacker News? Anywhere?
  - saalweachter 15y ago
    While I generally subscribe to the Utopian ideal that good ideas should be able to triumph over bad ideas by virtue alone, there are probably both times where it is inappropriate and appropriate for someones opinions and beliefs to be relevant to their employment. Scenario A, normal job, no customer interaction, non-manager, but an irrepressibly talkative fellow. Likes to talk to his co-workers about how awesome slavery is. Co-workers have complained that they're tired of hearing him, you've talked to him, he keeps talking irregardless. Scenario B, customer-facing job. It comes up at the company picnic that the employee thinks slavery was really awesome. You haven't yet heard him mention this to a customer. Scenario C, manager. One of your underlings, in charge of a hopefully-diverse group of under-underlings, expresses his pro-slavery opinions to you.
    - nirvdrum 15y ago
      A more relevant and recent example is whether you support software patents. Those opposed to them rail against those in favor of them pretty hard. Some are now making hiring decisions based upon that. Should I not be allowed to express my views on software patents simply because you don't agree with them? You'd like to paint it as a black & white issue, but I don't see it that way. Sorry for the liberal use of pronouns there. But there's an extremely worrying trend to me whereby it's no longer okay to disagree or have an open discussion about certain topics that the HN mass has decided their stance on. Most of the time I, and many others, just bow out and let everyone here virtually pat themselves on the back as each professes the moral high road they've taken. It defeats the point of having an open forum or discussion on an article. It's our equivalent of political rhetoric.
Symmetry 15y ago
we change people's thinking by gentle persuasion, not by public mockery I think this is wrong. I was just reading a book[1] about this actually, and historically convincing people that some practice is wrong does a bit, but if its social convention then people are actually mostly going to keep doing the same thing because "that's what people do" until it becomes a matter of public face or mockery. See dueling in the UK, or foot-binding in China. [1]http://www.amazon.com/Honor-Code-Revolutions-Happen-ebook/dp/B00403NO3I http://www.amazon.com/Honor-Code-Revolutions-Happen-ebook/dp...
Duff 15y ago
Crafting the perfect apology is fine, but you need to consider whether there is value in doing so. Are the people whom you are offending by acting like a fratboy really going to believe that you have "seen the light"? The apology these guys wrote basically says "sorry, we thought this was funny"... which is really just creating more problems. I'd argue that this affair validates a rule my grandfather had: When you say something really dumb, the smart move is to stop talking.
CoffeeDregs 15y ago
You're a very well regarded HNer, so I'm not happy writing a critique of your comment [<- ironically, I initially wrote "I apologize for..."]. >I very well may be sorry that I brought [slavery] >up on MLK day, but I'm not really sorry for >feeling the way I do You can't apologize for making someone feel badly about something if you still hold that something to be true. Using your MLK/slavery example, why are you apologizing? You are apologizing because you empathize with the black/white person you offended with your statement. You cannot do so if you still hold slavery to be good; if you maintain your belief in slavery as you say this not-apology statement, then you are placating or mollifying or appeasing. >We need to make sure we are not >trying to tell people how to think. You follow this with suggesting something like Socratic-methodizing them, which is basically a mechanism to get people to think your way. >it's not okay for a mob to dictate to you >what your policies should be Maybe it's not "ok" (whatever that might mean), but it's reality: see law, ethics, morals, common values, cliques, villages, associations, "shunning" or any other "mob" defined construct/action... I agree with a version of your statement that has additional nuance (involving power), but, as written, the statement rejects human mechanics.
- timwiseman 15y ago
  You can't apologize for making someone feel badly about something if you still hold that something to be true. You can if what you are apologizing for is the way or time you expressed it. Slavery is probably a controversial example because almost everyone now will agree it is morally wrong. But even absolute facts can be offensive at the wrong time. For instance, I think more people should be aware of the extent of the dangers of drowning and the right ways to prevent it. It would be insensitive at best if I started discussing that during the funeral of a young child that had drowned. It is a good message to get out, but it would be appropriate for me to apoloize for bringing up in that context.
- petercooper 15y ago
  You can't apologize for making someone feel badly about something if you still hold that something to be true. You can express empathy with the other person though. And in English, at least, this is commonly done using apologetic language, "I am sorry that you feel that way and I understand that you are upset" etc. It is possible to totally disagree with someone but still feel empathy for their reaction to your opinion. As such, you certainly can "apologize" for making someone feel bad even if you don't find the cause justifies it. You're just not apologizing for your opinion.
jamesaguilar 15y ago
In the case of your first paragraph, I'd say just don't apologize then. Say nothing, or, if you must, explain why your thinking differs with those criticizing you. For example, if Sqoot is not sorry, they could remain silent. Or they could say, "We understand that this is sexist. We care more about getting large attendance, and have a reasonable belief that attractive women serving beer will accomplish that end." That will probably enrage people even more so I think silence is the best option in this case. > We need to make sure we are not trying to tell people how to think. It is fine to tell people how to think if they are thinking wrongly. It is fine to use what force you have available to you, be it economic, social or political, to change their actions if you think those actions are harmful enough to warrant it.

brudgers 15y ago

>"the part about differentiating between being sorry for being rude and being sorry for ideas, not the part about supporting slavery." An apology for being rude is in the form, "I apologize for being rude." It is not of the form, "I apologize, if someone was offended by my rudeness." "No harm, no foul," does not apply to apologies. When I truly apologize, it is not because I have offended someone else. It is because I have offended myself by not holding myself to my own standards. That is why I may find myself apologizing to you when you have taken no offense.

kaens 15y ago

I think the driving point, which you allude to is that apologies should be honest. There's a minor point in there somewhere about how wording apologies in terms of the receiver-of-offense is a common tactic for people who care most about what the average person thinks of them. In this case, I can just barely see this being done by someone who was totally aware of how what they posted sounds, but forgot that the context that might allow them to make that joke, amongst people where it would be obvious that it was intended as a jab at a stereotype that all parties thought shouldn't exist, does not exist where it was posted. And then also hit a bit of a panic mode and put up a sheepish apology like that. I know enough people that have actually done things similar to that. Not because they didn't understand the issues, but because they were distractable, burst-of-extroversion, nerdy younger folk who tended to forget here and there that the reality bubble they were in was not a universal one, and didn't know how to own up to a mistake well. I absolutely agree with you about the right to opinion, and that people should not need to apologize for holding one. On the other hand, I do not think that those people have the right to have those opinions respected, and if they're especially ridiculous -- bringing back slavery, or the moon being made of conspiracy, for example -- and they're being expressed publicly and vocally, I do not think that those people have the right to not have their opinions called out in a confrontational manner. Should a person be disrespected for holding a ridiculously offensive opinion? No. A person gets disrespected for actions related to that opinion.

DanielBMarkham 15y ago
Agreed. Interesting sidebar here about John Nash, the famous mathematician. Nash, as you may know, suffered from what was probably paranoid schizophrenia. He had the most severe delusions which crippled his work. Later in life he managed to get along. After watching the movie I did a little research. As I understood it, Nash basically said that the delusions never went away, and he really didn't stop believing in them, but he learned to live with them and express them in a way that allowed his life to continue. He felt that either way could be true -- the things he suspected or the reality others descried to him. Therefore it was inappropriate to make a big deal out of it. He kept the same useless and perhaps personally dangerous opinions, but he learned to adjust his actions so that he could continue being a functioning part of society. Very interesting outcome. I think you only get there by encouraging people, not by shaming or ostracizing them. It could have worked out very differently for Nash.

hullibu 15y ago

In the case of wanting to bring back slavery, you'd be unable to successfully apologize. You may as well tell people that Hitler was your father and you were proud of him in that case, because you'll never be totally forgiven. At some point, it might be best to give your best apology as stated in the post, but assume that you will not be able to recover from the leg down your throat.

kaens 15y ago
Part of his point, I think, is that holding an opinion does not harm anyone. Would it be an offensive opinion? Yes. Are you right that there are a bunch of people who would be very angry about it? Yes. And that those people would likely never forgive someone who thought slavery should be brought back? Yes. There's also nothing to forgive the person with the offensive opinion for, other than offending someone. I don't think that the opinion-holder would have a right to not have that offense expressed, and I don't think people should have the right to hold and express any opinion with the expectation that no one will express offense, but I also don't think people have the right to not be offended.
- hullibu 15y ago
  I believe in freedom of opinion and speech, but I also believe in freedom of sense. Believing that slavery is good is not only a generally offensive position, but it is an opinion that implies poor morals. Therefore not only in general company is expressing such an opinion a poor choice if one wishes to be socially accepted, but having the opinion itself is an abomination. Being easily offended is not a good thing. And anything that divides for the purpose of uniting, like political correctness, enforced diversity, etc. is suspect because it can annoy or hurt a group, even if that group is in a power or majority position. And people have the right to be offended or not offended. A morally corrupt person has the right to hang out in the Hall of Evil if they would like. That is freedom. But the purpose of the original post being discussed is that there is a way to apologize, and for that matter a reason to apologize. I personally think the apology was warranted. But, in the case of wanting to bring back slavery, I just don't think you can defend it as a moral opinion that should be aired. Even though I wouldn't outlaw the opinion, that doesn't stop me from strongly suggesting it is a bad idea and a sign of antisocial foolishness.

samth 15y ago

> For instance, I might have an opinion that we should bring back slavery. A totally offensive opinion, yes, but dammit, I'm entitled to have it. I think this is confusing two very different things. You are "entitled" to have this opinion in that (a) you shouldn't be locked in prison for stating this opinion and (b) I am not allowed to beat you up for having this opinion. However, that opinion is wrong. You should stop having it, and if you express it at work you will and should be fired. I think this is exactly analogous to this case. Sqoot could have held a successful hackathon if they didn't display their sexism in their ad copy, but the root problem is the sexism, not the ad copy. That's why the apology rubs people the wrong way.

kyberias 15y ago
> However, that opinion is wrong. You should stop having it, and if you express it at work you will and should be fired. I think this opinion is wrong. If one expresses his opinion about slavery, he should not be fired. Now that you had this wrong opinion about opinions, should you be fired? From work? From Hacker News? Anywhere?
- saalweachter 15y ago
  While I generally subscribe to the Utopian ideal that good ideas should be able to triumph over bad ideas by virtue alone, there are probably both times where it is inappropriate and appropriate for someones opinions and beliefs to be relevant to their employment. Scenario A, normal job, no customer interaction, non-manager, but an irrepressibly talkative fellow. Likes to talk to his co-workers about how awesome slavery is. Co-workers have complained that they're tired of hearing him, you've talked to him, he keeps talking irregardless. Scenario B, customer-facing job. It comes up at the company picnic that the employee thinks slavery was really awesome. You haven't yet heard him mention this to a customer. Scenario C, manager. One of your underlings, in charge of a hopefully-diverse group of under-underlings, expresses his pro-slavery opinions to you.
  - nirvdrum 15y ago
    A more relevant and recent example is whether you support software patents. Those opposed to them rail against those in favor of them pretty hard. Some are now making hiring decisions based upon that. Should I not be allowed to express my views on software patents simply because you don't agree with them? You'd like to paint it as a black & white issue, but I don't see it that way. Sorry for the liberal use of pronouns there. But there's an extremely worrying trend to me whereby it's no longer okay to disagree or have an open discussion about certain topics that the HN mass has decided their stance on. Most of the time I, and many others, just bow out and let everyone here virtually pat themselves on the back as each professes the moral high road they've taken. It defeats the point of having an open forum or discussion on an article. It's our equivalent of political rhetoric.

Symmetry 15y ago

we change people's thinking by gentle persuasion, not by public mockery I think this is wrong. I was just reading a book[1] about this actually, and historically convincing people that some practice is wrong does a bit, but if its social convention then people are actually mostly going to keep doing the same thing because "that's what people do" until it becomes a matter of public face or mockery. See dueling in the UK, or foot-binding in China. [1]http://www.amazon.com/Honor-Code-Revolutions-Happen-ebook/dp/B00403NO3I http://www.amazon.com/Honor-Code-Revolutions-Happen-ebook/dp...

Duff 15y ago

Crafting the perfect apology is fine, but you need to consider whether there is value in doing so. Are the people whom you are offending by acting like a fratboy really going to believe that you have "seen the light"? The apology these guys wrote basically says "sorry, we thought this was funny"... which is really just creating more problems. I'd argue that this affair validates a rule my grandfather had: When you say something really dumb, the smart move is to stop talking.

CoffeeDregs 15y ago

You're a very well regarded HNer, so I'm not happy writing a critique of your comment [<- ironically, I initially wrote "I apologize for..."]. >I very well may be sorry that I brought [slavery] >up on MLK day, but I'm not really sorry for >feeling the way I do You can't apologize for making someone feel badly about something if you still hold that something to be true. Using your MLK/slavery example, why are you apologizing? You are apologizing because you empathize with the black/white person you offended with your statement. You cannot do so if you still hold slavery to be good; if you maintain your belief in slavery as you say this not-apology statement, then you are placating or mollifying or appeasing. >We need to make sure we are not >trying to tell people how to think. You follow this with suggesting something like Socratic-methodizing them, which is basically a mechanism to get people to think your way. >it's not okay for a mob to dictate to you >what your policies should be Maybe it's not "ok" (whatever that might mean), but it's reality: see law, ethics, morals, common values, cliques, villages, associations, "shunning" or any other "mob" defined construct/action... I agree with a version of your statement that has additional nuance (involving power), but, as written, the statement rejects human mechanics.

timwiseman 15y ago
You can't apologize for making someone feel badly about something if you still hold that something to be true. You can if what you are apologizing for is the way or time you expressed it. Slavery is probably a controversial example because almost everyone now will agree it is morally wrong. But even absolute facts can be offensive at the wrong time. For instance, I think more people should be aware of the extent of the dangers of drowning and the right ways to prevent it. It would be insensitive at best if I started discussing that during the funeral of a young child that had drowned. It is a good message to get out, but it would be appropriate for me to apoloize for bringing up in that context.
petercooper 15y ago
You can't apologize for making someone feel badly about something if you still hold that something to be true. You can express empathy with the other person though. And in English, at least, this is commonly done using apologetic language, "I am sorry that you feel that way and I understand that you are upset" etc. It is possible to totally disagree with someone but still feel empathy for their reaction to your opinion. As such, you certainly can "apologize" for making someone feel bad even if you don't find the cause justifies it. You're just not apologizing for your opinion.

jamesaguilar 15y ago

In the case of your first paragraph, I'd say just don't apologize then. Say nothing, or, if you must, explain why your thinking differs with those criticizing you. For example, if Sqoot is not sorry, they could remain silent. Or they could say, "We understand that this is sexist. We care more about getting large attendance, and have a reasonable belief that attractive women serving beer will accomplish that end." That will probably enrage people even more so I think silence is the best option in this case. > We need to make sure we are not trying to tell people how to think. It is fine to tell people how to think if they are thinking wrongly. It is fine to use what force you have available to you, be it economic, social or political, to change their actions if you think those actions are harmful enough to warrant it.