3 ms·

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

by 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.
- kaens 15y ago
  I think you only get there by encouraging people, not by shaming or ostracizing them. It could have worked out very differently for Nash. I agree strongly, in cases where the opinion is held out of ignorance or misunderstanding, or some root that isn't itself malicious. People exist who hold, or pretend to hold offensive, or actually incorrect "opinions" for the purposes of power-gathering or pure getting-off-on-pissing-people-off. The latter can range from harmless to very frustrating, the former are dangerous. It becomes obvious that they have explicit motives behind "holding" and expressing an opinion quickly enough, but if the former manages to gather enough people around it it becomes a force to be reckoned with quickly. Luckily there aren't very many of either of those two types of people, and the best way to avoid malicious ones actually ... doing anything malicious is through a well-educated populace and encouraging people to think and challenging the ideas present in a sane manner -- I mention this stuff mostly due to thinking that it's important to make and know the distinctions between respecting a person, respecting a person's right to an opinion, and keeping in mind that that person does not have a right to voice opinions and have them considered with equal weight, does not have a right to voice opinions and not have them traits like bigotry, purposeful ignorance, attempts at manipulation, and so on. It's normally pretty clear when someone holds, for example, racist views out of ignorance versus malice if you've been engaged in discussion for more than a few minutes.
  - DanielBMarkham 15y ago
    I don't want to continue the mutual admiration society, but I would like to add something. The thing to remember above all others is that the vast majority of the popular opinions we hold today were considered offensive and rude at some point in the past. The only reason we've evolved is because people holding those opinions were allowed to voice them. Of course, for every "good" opinion there were a thousand hateful and wrong-headed opinions. But that's the way it works. You let in everybody and allow reasoned discourse to sort them all out. Yes, there is a very rare segment of society that are actually evil, and there's nothing much to be done with those folks. Let them express their opinions, punish them when they take actions, just like we treat everybody else. You don't have an obligation to talk to idiotic people, or even say nice things about them. They just have a right to think as they choose. What I find most shocking is the idea that simply because I am extremely offended by your opinion -- the way you think -- I should take some action against you: fire you, put you in jail, have you "re-educated", etc. No matter how offended I am at somebody's opinion, as long as they don't take action on it (express it rudely, hurt another person, become an embarrassment for the organization, and so on), I will fight for the death for their right to have it. That's the entire basis of a secular society, the root of the enlightenment. But a large majority of people don't understand that. To me that's a lot more worrisome than a couple of jackasses. World is full of jackasses. </rant>

by kaens 15y ago

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.

kaens 15y ago
I think you only get there by encouraging people, not by shaming or ostracizing them. It could have worked out very differently for Nash. I agree strongly, in cases where the opinion is held out of ignorance or misunderstanding, or some root that isn't itself malicious. People exist who hold, or pretend to hold offensive, or actually incorrect "opinions" for the purposes of power-gathering or pure getting-off-on-pissing-people-off. The latter can range from harmless to very frustrating, the former are dangerous. It becomes obvious that they have explicit motives behind "holding" and expressing an opinion quickly enough, but if the former manages to gather enough people around it it becomes a force to be reckoned with quickly. Luckily there aren't very many of either of those two types of people, and the best way to avoid malicious ones actually ... doing anything malicious is through a well-educated populace and encouraging people to think and challenging the ideas present in a sane manner -- I mention this stuff mostly due to thinking that it's important to make and know the distinctions between respecting a person, respecting a person's right to an opinion, and keeping in mind that that person does not have a right to voice opinions and have them considered with equal weight, does not have a right to voice opinions and not have them traits like bigotry, purposeful ignorance, attempts at manipulation, and so on. It's normally pretty clear when someone holds, for example, racist views out of ignorance versus malice if you've been engaged in discussion for more than a few minutes.
- DanielBMarkham 15y ago
  I don't want to continue the mutual admiration society, but I would like to add something. The thing to remember above all others is that the vast majority of the popular opinions we hold today were considered offensive and rude at some point in the past. The only reason we've evolved is because people holding those opinions were allowed to voice them. Of course, for every "good" opinion there were a thousand hateful and wrong-headed opinions. But that's the way it works. You let in everybody and allow reasoned discourse to sort them all out. Yes, there is a very rare segment of society that are actually evil, and there's nothing much to be done with those folks. Let them express their opinions, punish them when they take actions, just like we treat everybody else. You don't have an obligation to talk to idiotic people, or even say nice things about them. They just have a right to think as they choose. What I find most shocking is the idea that simply because I am extremely offended by your opinion -- the way you think -- I should take some action against you: fire you, put you in jail, have you "re-educated", etc. No matter how offended I am at somebody's opinion, as long as they don't take action on it (express it rudely, hurt another person, become an embarrassment for the organization, and so on), I will fight for the death for their right to have it. That's the entire basis of a secular society, the root of the enlightenment. But a large majority of people don't understand that. To me that's a lot more worrisome than a couple of jackasses. World is full of jackasses. </rant>