3 ms·

I have no idea what you're talking about. But, nevertheless: It doesn't matter who you offend or why. If a person comes up to you and says "I'm not really a per

I have no idea what you're talking about. But, nevertheless: It doesn't matter who you offend or why. If a person comes up to you and says "I'm not really a person; I'm really a tower of cats in a cunningly designed human suit, and your LOLcat photos offended me," the correct answer is still "Gosh, I'm terribly sorry. I didn't mean to offend. I really had no idea that cats would take my presentation in that way." After which you back carefully away and hope they don't come to your next talk. You should not respond with a passionate defense of free expression unless the person who approaches you is a cop trying to arrest you. [1] In general, nobody is trying to deny you the right to advertise your beliefs out loud. When they complain, you should assume that they are merely inviting you to walk back what you said before they commence avoiding you like the plague. Of course, if you really hate cats, you can always just respond with "good, I'm glad I offended you, you terrifying feline monstrosity!" Because very few Rails consulting customers are cats, that might not cost you much. Although, come to think of it, some Rails customers probably do employ cats, or people who love cats and care about their feelings. And there are many others who will feel mighty uncomfortable when the managers of the framework that lies beneath their million-dollar website become more concerned with aggressively asserting the universal freedom to hate cats than with keeping people like Mike Gunderloy on the team. What kind of priority is that? Enough with the sophomoric flamewar, already! --- [1] In which case, of course, you still shouldn't respond with a passionate defense. You should call up your lawyer and let her respond.

joecode 18y ago
That's pretty hillarious. But still I think it is useful when you offend a person to try to understand why. If there's something to it, then you apologize, and learn a lesson. But if you apologize wihtout learning anything, your apology is an empty one. Meanwhile, if they're just being hyper-sensitive for no good reason, I am quite happy to pop their bubble.
- mechanical_fish 18y ago
  if you apologize wihtout learning anything, your apology is an empty one. Not at all. The apology -- which one should issue immediately and without hesitation -- is full of meaning. Very important meaning. Just not literal meaning. What is the apology saying? "I hear you and I understand that you were really offended." "I am trying to listen to you." "I am not trying to hurt you on purpose." "I am not trying to deliberately start a giant flame war that tears our community apart." "I am open to reconsidering what I said, and the way I said it, in light of your interpretation of my words." "I have basic social skills and recognize the role of Apologizer when I see it." (See: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=240170 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=240170 ) What the apology is not: An admission of guilt, an admission that you did something illegal or even something wrong. You do not have to break down in tears. You don't have to agree with the complainer. You don't have to change your mind. What you have to do is signal some sympathy: That you're a civilized person who is open to "trying to understand" the offended person. That you want to de-escalate the situation rather than start a fight. That you're not a troll -- that is, someone who (a) deliberately introduces a topic that is likely to be offensive and then (b) continues to push the buttons of any offended people until a giant flame war breaks out.
  - joecode 18y ago
    There's some truth to that, of course. But I don't think apologies should always be issued, in any circumstances. Coddling people is often annoying. It slows things down and keeps people from being direct with one another. Sometimes a fight is actually better. Also, a little bit of confrontation keeps people from raising too many spurious complaints. Which method works better all depends on the circumstances, I guess.

joecode 18y ago

That's pretty hillarious. But still I think it is useful when you offend a person to try to understand why. If there's something to it, then you apologize, and learn a lesson. But if you apologize wihtout learning anything, your apology is an empty one. Meanwhile, if they're just being hyper-sensitive for no good reason, I am quite happy to pop their bubble.

mechanical_fish 18y ago
if you apologize wihtout learning anything, your apology is an empty one. Not at all. The apology -- which one should issue immediately and without hesitation -- is full of meaning. Very important meaning. Just not literal meaning. What is the apology saying? "I hear you and I understand that you were really offended." "I am trying to listen to you." "I am not trying to hurt you on purpose." "I am not trying to deliberately start a giant flame war that tears our community apart." "I am open to reconsidering what I said, and the way I said it, in light of your interpretation of my words." "I have basic social skills and recognize the role of Apologizer when I see it." (See: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=240170 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=240170 ) What the apology is not: An admission of guilt, an admission that you did something illegal or even something wrong. You do not have to break down in tears. You don't have to agree with the complainer. You don't have to change your mind. What you have to do is signal some sympathy: That you're a civilized person who is open to "trying to understand" the offended person. That you want to de-escalate the situation rather than start a fight. That you're not a troll -- that is, someone who (a) deliberately introduces a topic that is likely to be offensive and then (b) continues to push the buttons of any offended people until a giant flame war breaks out.
- joecode 18y ago
  There's some truth to that, of course. But I don't think apologies should always be issued, in any circumstances. Coddling people is often annoying. It slows things down and keeps people from being direct with one another. Sometimes a fight is actually better. Also, a little bit of confrontation keeps people from raising too many spurious complaints. Which method works better all depends on the circumstances, I guess.