Hacker News Reader

Comment by macspoofing | Hacker News Reader

I'm not sure apologizing publicly has made anything better for any individual, especially in the current moral panic climate. Mobs don't accept apologies.

Public apologies stamp official guilt on the individual and therefore serve as a license for the mob to further punish them because now they have admitted their fault and therefore are 'officially' guilty of the crime. Public apologies, therefore, are the metaphorical equivalent of blood in the water for attracting sharks.

Maybe it's better to just ignore and maintain innocence because then at least there is some gray area? I don't know.

View on HN

People in strong position stand to gain by apologizing, while people in weak position stand to lose. One must consider one's standing before dabbling.

In my own company I try to apologize every time I screw something up. I know my position is unassailable, and my team members should have trust that their leadership is in touch with reality.

I am also cognizant of the fact that no hired employee has the same level of security, and it troubles me.

Apologizing is a good leadership strategy regardless of standing IMO. It shows that you are human which can help one gain and maintain report with fellow workers.

Refusing to apologize has the opposite effect.

If others are looking for any reason to get rid of you, it might put them in a better position to pull the trigger. Obviously that doesn't describe the vast majority of situations though.

Strong disagree. I want to follow someone who knows when not to apologize: when it’s _not_ their/our mistake, when assigning blame doesn’t help, and when they’re fighting for us.

I don't see how this contradicts the parent's post at all?

I’m my experience it is up to the entire team or organization to cultivate such an environment. I do agree, it has to start somewhere.

That’s more of a power play than an apology. As you said only you can admit error without repercussion

I think I understand where you're coming from, but I see the "never apologize" philosophy as having an utterly corrosive effect on the person who made a mistake.

What I try to do is apologize concisely, but then feel free to ignore people who want to drag this out into "that was not a REAL apology" / "now confess to your OTHER crimes" territory.

Things like this can be hard to ignore when, say, the angry mob is trying to get you fired.

Admittedly, this can be a problematic situation, especially when part of the original mistake was speaking about something employment related without being a spokesperson for said employer. Another problematic situation can be if the mistake involves actual illegal acts. In those cases, discretion (omitting the apology or keeping it to an absolute minimum) may indeed be the better part of valor.

But even in those situations, I see absolutely no upside in publicly denying your mistake at length, if in fact you've made one.

I think people in this thread are talking at cross-purposes.

On the one hand, you have the people who are talking about when you genuinely make a mistake, and recognize it as such before public outcry.

On the other end of the spectrum, you have people that maybe feel that they were acting / talking / behaving in a way that is normal but are being told that they made a mistake. In these circumstances, there is usually the issue that the nature of the mistake is quite subjective.

In the former case, your strategy is probably a good one. In the latter, I think the "don't apologize" is probably the better way to go, for the reasons outlined by GC.

Denying that you have made a mistake is likely to piss off the people who would otherwise be willing to move on. As the "mob", which may or may not exist in any given situation, is not going to be swayed by protests of innocence, the former are the only people you should care about.

Agreed. Apologizing may keep the mob size small and insignificant.

macspoofing is right. This stuff works opposite to how you and GP are describing.

Did it ever happen? Did anybody actually get out of being cancelled by mobs by apologizing?

The point of apologising isn't to avoid consequences. It's intended to mitigate three sorts of damages: that inflicted on whoever suffered because of you, the damage society experiences any time its rules are broken, and the damage you have done to yourself by breaking some moral standard you believe in.

To that end, an apology that allows s/o to "get out" as in "saw no further consequences" isn't necessarily what's being claimed, because it still needs to come with (some) costs, even if they are mostly symbolic.

And, yes, of course there are people apologising for all sorts of behaviour that's being criticised every day. A Google News search has about five dozen examples from just the last day or two[1]. If apologies are never beneficial, I doubt they would be used that often.

Apologies are also a central factor in the most formalised system of "being cancelled" we have, the criminal justice system.

As to "getting out" of "being cancelled" by "mobs" I wouldn't know since I already have trouble identifying what that's supposed to mean.

[1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=apologized&client=safari&rls...

> As to "getting out" of "being cancelled" by "mobs" I wouldn't know since I already have trouble identifying what that's supposed to mean.

I have a strong suspicion that you know what I mean, you just don't want to recognize that. If you indeed know nothing about cancel culture, I envy whatever bubble you reside in, and I wish I could organize my life to never encounter it too, however it is not so for me. If you pretend not to know about it because you don't want to engage in discussion about it, well, I certainly can't force you.

> And, yes, of course there are people apologising for all sorts of behaviour that's being criticised every day.

You may find it hard to believe, but I actually know people do such thing as "apologizing". I do it myself once in a while. My question was in specific context of the comment "Agreed. Apologizing may keep the mob size small and insignificant." and related to this context, not to general act of apologizing and whether or not it is practiced in human society. I think you have missed this context and from that follows your trouble to identify what I supposed to mean. I think I made it cleared now, or at least did as much as I could to make it clear.

Oh, your first hunch was correct. I sort-of know that it means the phenomenon where Harvey Weinstein rapes a dozen women and everybody on the internet pretends that's the reason they don't want to have women on their team. Because apparently "showing up at their colleagues' hotel room doors, naked and at night" is somehow just bound to happen in the course of standard operating procedures.

Also the related phenomenon where people walk through cities being casually and formally anti-semitic, deliberately crashing cars into groups of people, but call the other side "mob", because they complain about that on Twitter.

> I sort-of know that it means the phenomenon where Harvey Weinstein

I think you are confusing your imagination with reality. Nobody - and by that I mean literally, without exaggeration, no single person who lives or ever lived - ever pretended that Harvey Weinstein raping women is the reason they don't want women on their team. Not "everybody", not somebody - literally no single person is pretending or ever pretended that. Moreover, you know that as well as I do, I am certain of that (because you don't know any such person, by virtue of such person not existing). So why are you writing these obviously false words?

> Because apparently "showing up at their colleagues' hotel room doors, naked and at night" is somehow just bound to happen in the course of standard operating procedures.

I do not know who told you that (I suspect you imagined it just as you did the above) but it certainly is not the course of any operating procedures at all. None of them.

> Also the related phenomenon where people walk through cities being casually and formally anti-semitic, deliberately crashing cars into groups of people, but call the other side "mob", because they complain about that on Twitter.

People who walk through cities being anti-semitic and people who complain about cancel culture are distinct sets of people whose intersection is minuscule. And you also know it. Also, cancel culture is not complaining on Twitter about somebody marching somewhere, and you also know it too. Again, you are writing words which both you and everybody reading them knows are false. What for?

Oh yeah they do. And while canceled guys ressurect their careers pretty regularly, their victims don't.

It is not like actresses who lost careers because they refused Weinstein could ever get their careers back. And it is not like those who complain about securely harassment cold easily get new jobs - people are afraid to hire them.

Dan Harmon

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/674/transcript

But did he? https://www.ccn.com/dan-harmon-and-rick-morty-are-canceled-b... https://www.indiewire.com/2020/08/rick-morty-dan-harmon-canc... https://uproxx.com/tv/cancel-rick-and-morty-dan-harmon-video...

> Denying that you have made a mistake is likely to piss off the people who would otherwise be willing to move on.

Which is why you don't deny it either; you move on, avoiding the Streisand Effect as best as possible by not engaging. It's passive denial vs. active denial.

I'm not saying this is moral or good - I'm only saying that it seems to work for people. It's a question of game theory. We can get better apologies if we start to accept apologies and move on with our lives, but the mob wants blood and these days the public apology only serves as an admission of guilt, absolving the mob of any evil when they pull the person apart limb from limb.

There will always be people who disagree with you, and who will continue to make public attacks on you. They're not the ones you are apologizing to, or for. Pretending you did not make an error will eventually catch up to you, in the opinions of those who would view an apology to your credit and in the fact that it leads to you making more mistakes and not correcting them.

"...absolving the mob of any evil when they pull the person apart limb from limb."

That's a little excessively dramatic, don't you think?

> That's a little excessively dramatic, don't you think?

It's 2020, everything's a little excessively dramatic

Then you risk being considered as though you explicitly denied it anyway - and the choice as to when and whether we move on is not so often yours to make alone. Do this sort of thing too often with the same people, and you are likely to get a reputation as untrustworthy - someone who might cover up a problem until it is discovered by others.

In the current "us vs them" of politics, apologizing does nothing to appease "them" while making you seem weaker to "us" and denying it means you will be given the benefit of the doubt by "us."

If e.g. Kavanaugh had admitted assaulting Ms. Ford and apologized, do you think enough Democrats would have said "Apology accepted" and voted to confirm to make up for the Republicans who would be unwilling to vote to confirm someone who has admitted to sexual assault? As long as Kavanaugh denies it, everyone who votes for him can just publicly say that they believed his denial, whether or not they actually did believe it.

I think we are considering the situation where a mistake was made. I don't think the Kavanaugh situation applies - depending on your views on it, it is either situation of cynical rapist and hardcore liar, thoroughly corrupt evil man, denying his crimes, or an innocent man being falsely accused in a vile crime. In both situations, apology wouldn't solve anything.

Item #0 from TFA is "that there is no point in pretending you have not made a mistake." Both the GP comment and myself are disputing this fact. I think it's odious to do so, but there absolutely is a point in doing so.

As far as Kavanaugh, obviously none of this applies if he is not-guilty, because few advocate apologizing for things you didn't do. However:

There are a lot of middle-aged adults who did terrible things when they were teenagers. Among those, the ones who own up and apologized are excluded from many positions of power, while those that deny it are included.

So for this particular subset of the population, we punish the best, reward the worst, and incentivize any fence-sitters to lie. Perhaps it's a bit OT, but something is clearly broken here.

> Among those, the ones who own up and apologized are excluded from many positions of power, while those that deny it are included.

That depends on the level of power the said adult has accumulated. We've witnessed people who were persecuted for most minor transgressions, and people who were forgiven for very major things (e.g. credible rape accusations, being an officer in the KKK, being a member of a terrorist organization, being in prison for murder while being a member of a terrorist organization, etc. etc.). That, of course, needs very powerful position and very powerful friends - which none of us likely has.

Well, you do have something of a point here: if you have done something that is illegal or widely regarded as reprehensible, then it is usually in your best interests to deny it - but it is quite obvious that the article we're all nominally discussing here is not about such situations.

I also find it interesting how the issue of admitting to making mistakes is being conflated with apologizing. While they are related, there is an important difference: a person who will never apologize is merely immature, while one who never admits to making mistakes might be a dangerous liability to himself and others, and is unfit for positions of responsibility.

Apology for sexual assault really does not mean I will be ok with someone who did it on the most powerful judicial position.

I mean, it is absurd expectation. Apology does not even absolve you if minor crime in legal system. Plus, Supreme Court has great only little checked power. I just don't see someone willing to use power that way as suitable, even if he apologized.

I didn't say people should forgive Kavanaugh, I said they wouldn't. Therefore denying it does have a point, directly contradicting the beginning of the article that states that there is no point denying it.

The best course of action in public apology that includes potential mobs running rampant is to wait.

If possible, do not immediately make any statement and if in a organization, make an "we are investigating" response. Most mobs are moved by emotions and herd mentality so just being silent for a while can disperse the worst of the mobs.

Make an thorough apology (like the guideline here) later.

Most internet mobs just move on to the next totem pole to burn in days so this seems to work (and is indeed how a lot of companies respond if they can't just fire someone and get over it)

A real mob, such as campus students can be a bit more troublesome.

There's only one rule for apologizing: You apologize if you actually believe that you've done wrong. NEVER apologize for something you believe was done correctly or in good faith or for "PR" or whatever else.

Not listening to this advice is 100% the reason why people don’t trust a lot of public apologies: too many people/companies “apologizing” by saying “I’m sorry you got mad” or “I’m sorry you found out about this”. If you apologize, mean it. If you don’t mean it, don’t apologize.

Every time a person/company apologizes for getting caught, it demeans public trust in everyone’s apologies.

Should you not apologize for unintended consequences, i.e. done in good faith, but on your authority/responsibility?

I think only you can answer that question. Part of a good apology is knowing one-self and self-reflection. Unintended consequences happen, yes, and I don't think one could argue one way is always the right answer in all cases. Just remember rule 1 and that is _you_ that is giving the apology.

The problem is the "good faith" bit ... that often isn't visible downstream, and to external stakeholders it looks like you are making excuses.

For example, if I make a commitment to somebody and then circumstances outside my control prevent me from fulfilling it, I may very well say "it's not my fault, apologising would be insincere". But to an external stakeholder what they see is they are wearing consequences and I am not accepting accountability. There are a million shades of gray according to how much I could / should have anticipated the eventuality ... but that makes it really not simple to make this kind of call, and I would have to say, if you are going to err, I would rather err on the side of apologising than not.

> especially in the current moral panic climate.

A side effect of everyone getting 15 minutes of fame/infamy is that it means an increasing fraction of social interactions are one-shot. Often, the only time you will ever hear about someone is when they do something dumb that catches the Twitter zeitgeist. Once the moment has passed, they fade from view.

The optimal strategy for iterated prisoner's dilemma where you will interact with an opponent multiple times involves some level of fairness and give and take. The optimal strategy for single-turn prisoner's dilemma is to assume bad faith and selfishly betray your opponent.

Infer from that as you will.

Surely with regards to outcomes, there's a good argument to be made that one shouldn't admit guilt. But from a more, idk idealistic perspective, the world would be a better place if everyone promptly admitted fault and committed to doing better? I personally quite liked the advice given, and wish I had held myself to it more often in the past.

I think there's definitely some truth to what you're saying, but I also wonder how much this is a problem offline, I've not encountered it heavily, but I'm also not a particularly online person.

>But from a more, idk idealistic perspective, the world would be a better place if everyone promptly admitted fault and committed to doing better?

I'm not sure about that.

I think there needs to be a distinction between a private apology to specific individuals for specific wrongs vs public apology to an undefined amorphous set of people. The former is certainly the right thing to do and it also offers hope of redemption because the wronged individual can accept the apology and forgive (or not). In the latter case, there is no acceptance, there's only the mob who wants to make an example of you because they now have 100% proof of your guilt.

Fortunately I've never found myself in a position of sufficient power/responsibility to have to offer an apology to a group. Is there a balance to be struck between the difficulty the apologizer will undoubtedly face from rage mobs and the consolation some members of the wronged group may feel from the apologizer acknowledging wrongdoing and committing to do better in the future? I don't know that I could blame someone for avoiding a public apology, with the current nature of online harassment, but I think that's a question anyone who finds themselves in such a position should at least ask themselves. And of course, if everyone also adhered to the "What should I do when I see someone else is making a mistake?" section, then the world would be perfect and conflicts would be much more easily resolved.

"I think there needs to be a distinction between a private apology to specific individuals for specific wrongs vs public apology to an undefined amorphous set of people. The former is certainly the right thing to do and it also offers hope of redemption because the wronged individual can accept the apology and forgive (or not)."

Note that those to whom you apologize may communicate that apology to "the mob", with the result that they have proof of your guilt as well as proof of your lack of forthrightness.

In the ultimate case, if you are following your own advice, Machiavelli and my bitter cynicism suggest that not leaving live enemies behind you is the best strategy.

Yes, but do we live in that idealistic world? I would answer with a very firm no.

The world would be a lot better place if everyone did (any number of things), but perfect compliance is just never going to happen. We cannot get people to not murder each other over shoes or sports teams. Any plan which depends on this compliance is doomed to failure.

Yeah, I generally agree with you. Mostly just exploring thoughts here, the gp comment prompted a kinda unexpected re-examining of my hitherto un-examined ideas on the ethical basis of the advice in the post. I'd generally consider myself something of a utilitarian/consequentialist, and would normally accept the premise that apologizing in front of the Twitter mob would at best do nothing positive, but for whatever reason my brain wants me to say "apologizing is right, and consequences be damned"

Might I suggest some research into Kant's categorical imperative, some time listening to your brain, and possibly the history of Joseph McCarthy?

I think you should also examine the possibility that gp is straightforwardly wrong, and that a good apology can make things better, even (or especially) in the face of being called out on Twitter. Consider how Dan Harmon reacted to Megan Ganz calling him out on Twitter: https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/1/11/16879702/dan-harmon-ap...

Doubtless many people have made things worse with "non-apology apologies" [1]. But your brain wants to say "apologizing is right" because when done right, it is right.

To me, truth and reconciliation are self-evidently how we build a better world, and refusal to take responsibility for mistakes is self-evidently corrosive to the individual and to society.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-apology_apology

I'm not sure apologizing publicly has made anything better for any individual

Sure it has, for example Dan Harmon's public apology to Megan Ganz: https://www.vox.com/culture/2018/1/11/16879702/dan-harmon-ap...

Public apologies, therefore, are the metaphorical equivalent of blood in the water for attracting sharks.

What are some examples of public apologies that met all 5 of these criteria [1], but made things worse rather than better? Would you consider the possibility that maybe the apologies that made things worse were actually done wrong, but they could have helped if they were done right?

More generally, apologies, restorative justice, truth and reconciliation, and related ideas seem to me like the obvious and only way to we can heal from injustice in our society. Refusing to admit fault seems obviously corrosive to society, and to a person's ego.

[1]: https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/12/5/16710430/sexual-har...

[Edit: man, I feel stupid for complaining about downvotes, but I am really not sure how I could have been more constructive with my disagreement in this comment. I cited examples, suggested an alternative explanation for observations my parent described, and didn't criticize anyone. What did I do wrong? I am ready and willing to apologize if I made any mistakes]

This is a great apology. Of course, he was wrong. Very wrong. But, I think there is one power dynamic that's missing in the entire #metoo discussion.

The power advantage that young women have on men; due to evolutionary pressures. Harmon didn't mean to be attracted to her. It happened.

I know biology isn't important in 2020. But I listened to his apology and realized that the human nature discussion is never part of this situation.

Ted Chiang's "liking what you see a documentary" is a good case study of a world where attraction's turned off. As a woman, I sometimes think we aren't empathic enough about how attraction works in men. It doesn't mean they are excused for sexual harassment. I just think evolutionary pressures should be part of the discussion.

Neither person should be setup to fail.

Well, that depends on a situation. If you're in an environment where people are united by a common goal and assume good faith, then admitting you done goofed up (when you did) is the best way - everybody knows you realized your mistake and will try to do better, and people can move on - and usually will be glad to offer you to help fixing it. And they'd know they can count on you to own up to your mistakes - so they'd be ready to listen if you say something isn't a mistake.

If you are in a "cancel culture" situation, then people that surround you are not you friends, and they do not have common goals with you. You can not win. Best thing is to get out of that situation ASAP, if you can not - minimize your losses in any way you can. And continue looking to get out of this situation, because you can not win, and you will surely lose sooner or later. Try to still be kind to others - you won't fix the broken culture, but at least you can have a little island of non-awfulness around you.

One of the bosses I had at a big bank told me the one thing she observed about successful people was that they never got hung up on mistakes. If they made a mistake, they just moved on as if it didn't happen, but would apologize if you asked sincerely one on one.

I think that's a pretty good middle ground. Apologizing too readily might also signal you lack self-respect or confidence which may invite even more vitriol.

Let's pretend for a minute that you have a conscience and feel bad about the effects of the mistake---not just the effects of having the mistake discovered. What if you have harmed someone you cared about? Would you still apply the strategy you are advocating?

Perhaps apologies do "serve as a license for the mob to further punish". Even so, what is the result to your life or to an organization of doing what you suggest?

I kind of skip apologies now and either look at changed behavior or set up some reminder to check for changed behavior.

This is legally because apologies from companies are so full of doublespeak and low value language that it’s a waste of my time to read, much less expect any understanding. Here’s an example from Pichai [0].

I do like the outage report style that some companies use [1] and think this is the way to repeat a problem and what you do to fix it. This takes the place of an apology or denial.

[0] https://www.axios.com/google-ceo-apologizes-past-sexual-hara...

[1] https://aws.amazon.com/message/41926/

I will also agree with you accepting makes only weaker. Nowadays, being cool in the team means troll others and joke about your mistakes or put it under the carpet. When someone agrees for mistake and apologies for doing that it gives trolls food for the next year. This post says the right thing to do from book theory. I have tried this. it doesn't work in practical terms. I want opinion from troll camp (who have done trolling others for making mistakes)

> No. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, as Judge Brandeis observed. Proper handling of mistakes is a sterling quality in anyone, and particularly important in a leader or public servant of any kind. It pays long-term dividends.

I like how everybody is talking about cancel culture without saying the words. We’re at a point where it’s definitely not just the right complaining about it.

You don't apologize, you just own it.

"Yeah, I made a mistake, shit happens, now I know better".

Though looking at current leaders of industries and countries, you could get away with just pretending you did nothing wrong.

And talking (tweeting) about other unrelated things that make people upset but aren't about your mistake. Diverting attention

Reply on news.ycombinator.com