Hacker News Reader

Comment by cdrini | Hacker News Reader

This interpretation looks flawed. You discredit the entire message based on a single word--a very general word whose meaning you pinned to a definition which results in the most negative interpretation--and you also ignore the fact that they explicitly state the damage it caused in the same paragraph.

To clarify: I'm not arguing this is a good or bad apology; just that the justification provided here looks flawed. Human speech isn't a programming language; it's not well defined and it's more than the sum of its parts. One can't derive conclusions about a text by analyzing a tiny subset out of context.

View on HN

If this was a transcript of a spoken apology I might be of your train of thought, but this was a composed letter looked over by (ostensibly) multiple folks. The wording was a choice.

Strongly agree with your sentiment; any premeditated/composed message is held to a higher standard (and rightfully so). I'm not arguing that one shouldn't analyze the wording, but that the analysis here is flawed (for the reasons I stated).

I would argue at this point in collective awareness of public communications, using a form of "sorry if I did any harm" regardless of specific words used is an explicit decision by the writer to not accept full culpability. I agree with original comment, when you see a weasel apology introduction, reading the rest is of little value.

> I would argue at this point in collective awareness of public communications, using a form of "sorry if I did any harm" regardless of specific words used is an explicit decision by the writer to not accept full culpability.

Based on my experience with the general public, with academics, and with industry folks, the criteria for what constitutes a sincere apology is not known by the majority. Furthermore, many of those who have heard the criteria do not accept it as a gold standard, and disagree with it (even those who are not being looked to for an apology).

The recipient can always choose to accept or not an apology. However, I find it quite distasteful to attribute intentions to someone simply because they did not follow a recipe (even if the choice not to was intentional).

I find it nicely clear in German. If you wrong someone, you're loading guilt unto yourself ("mit Schuld beladen"). You'll then ask to be forgiven ("um Entschuldigung bitten" is "asking to be relieved of the guilt"), and the other party can lift the guilt ("entschuldigen"). You can also say "ich entschuldige mich", which skips that step and is essentially "I absolve myself".

While it's common in colloquial German to use the one-step-absolution and skip over the possibility of the other party not absolving you, it's also often considered rude when it matters and has a taste of "but not really". It's fine when you accidentally stepped on someone's foot, but not so much when you've stolen their car.

“I’m sorry if I hurt you,” is a very different statement from, “I am sorry I hurt you.” One makes responsibility conditional, and the other takes responsibility.

I actually bounced from the text at that point as well. It taints the whole thing and makes it feel contrived.

Strong disagree. You should always apologize for _what you did_ not the _effects_ of what you did. Lead with and more strongly emphasize your actions and how they were inappropriate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com