Hacker News Reader

> The number of people in this thread arguing that apologies can only make things worse is shocking. Are these the same people who reject addressing war crimes with truth and reconciliation, and instead advocate "deny everything, make counteraccusations"?

I think you're misunderstanding their claim.

They are not making a claim that denial is better for society.

They are making a claim that denial is better for the accused (and only in certain situations).

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

"The accused" is interesting framing. I would hope that no one expects the innocent but accused to apologize for something they didn't do.

For the accused who are guilty, if we agree that denial is worse for society but currently better for the guilty, what can we do to change that, so that it is better for them to acknowledge fault and worse to remain in denial?

I think the crux of the issue is how powerful and unrelenting the internet mob has become.

If there was a way to neuter this power, or better ensure the punishment enacted by the mob fits the crime, less people would advocate for denial.

As it stands, public shaming often goes way overboard.

For those interested in hearing more stories of this: https://www.ted.com/talks/jon_ronson_when_online_shaming_goe...

What is wrong with the public raising its expectations on public figures, companies, politicians, etc? This is what I read every time someone refers to the "internet mob". It's a bunch of normal people being loud on the internet over a perceived injustice with nothing particularly toxic compared to the injustices themselves or the way speech is curtailed in other contexts (you can't be frank with your boss most of the time, e.g.).

There's nothing wrong with using the internet mob to keep powerful people in check. This is because, prior to the internet, powerful people were able to get away with too much evil with too little punishment. ("Nothing wrong" here, to me, means "for the greater good of society").

The problem is when this same internet mob protocol gets applied to average citizens. The internet mob deals massive amounts of damage to a person's reputation and psyche. And, there's no way to temper the punishment to meet the crime. For your average wrong-doer, it's extreme overkill.

Take, for example, the woman who recently got called out for making racist comments to a black man in the park. She was clearly in the wrong, but her entire life is ruined now due to the internet mob. The punishment did not fit the crime.

> if we agree that denial is worse for society but currently better for the guilty, what can we do to change that

Why is it worse for society? Guilt is already an emotion that exists for society, not for self-interest, it relies on morals, which all are learned through other people. If people are leaning more towards denial, it means that the cost for an individual to do something immoral is already too high, doesn't leave much room for mistakes that people inevitably make from time to time, so more people denying might be a natural feedback loop to make more space.

> If people are leaning more towards denial, it means that the cost for an individual to do something immoral is already too high

I have no idea where this idea comes from. People will attempt to avoid consequences even if those consequences are just.

IMO 'truth and reconciliation' should just focus on 'truth'.

We don't owe war criminals reconciliation, but they owe us the truth.

To clarify, the important thing about "reconciliation" is not about reconciling with war criminals, but about reconciling with supporters of war criminals, which are usually a pretty significant portion (sometimes the overwhelming majority) of the civilian population of the region or community that the war criminal is from.

Often, those supporters have been on the receiving end of pretty serious hardships themselves. That doesn't justify supporting war crimes, of course, but if you don't acknowledge those hardships, you create resentment and the seeds of future strife, rather than healing.

fair call, I know how that applies to collaborators from within targeted communities,

but I've also seen it wrongfully directed towards oppressors who never knew good relations with their subjects: we can't 'reconcile' if we never were friends.

The number of people in this thread arguing that apologies can only make things worse is shocking. Are these the same people who reject addressing war crimes with truth and reconciliation, and instead advocate "deny everything, make counteraccusations"?

Are you new here? No, so you shouldn't be surprised by these techbro echo chamber responses?

I thought there was a decently-sized left contingent that could at least push back on them.

Alas.

Regarding war crimes, here's a friendly reminder that they're almost exclusively addressed against black Africans despite the many war crimes committed by others - and usually those with far more global power. In fact, the United States has spread the logic that if their members or those of their allies were ever brought before such a court, they would invade the Hague and retrieve them (i.e., do another war crime).