Hacker News Reader

Comment by Pryde | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

>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"

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

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com