Hacker News Reader

Comment by byrneseyeview | Hacker News Reader

A general question: when someone says something offensive, the apology is often "We're sorry: we thought this was funny, but obviously it wasn't, so we've changed it."

This seems to get universally condemned, and lots of people argue that it's wrong to say "I'm sorry you're offended." But what are the alternatives? I suppose they could have said that they were deliberately sexist and hoped to hurt people's feelings, or something. I'm not sure. What--aside from groveling--do people want when they aren't satisfied with that kind of apology? It's scarily reminiscent of the way cults and authoritarian regimes function: it's not enough to confess a mistake. You have to confess your malice, too. (I wish I had some examples that weren't so fraught, but that's all I can think of: The Gulag Archipelago, various ex-Scientology memoirs, and lots of interactions with political correctness.)

For what it's worth, I agree that the copy was lame, and the sponsors were right to disassociate themselves. I'm just not sure it's a mortal sin to make a tacky joke and then apologize.

View on HN

There is a difference between "We thought it was funny. We were wrong." and "We are sorry you were offended." The former makes the person in bad taste the responsible party. The later makes the "offended" person the responsible party.

When you say "We are sorry you were offended..." many people will read in to that "...but if it weren't for you being offended there would be nothing wrong with this."

A simple choice of words can make all the difference in the world.

"...but if it weren't for you being offended there would be nothing wrong with this."

Is this statement even controversial? The only reason someone issues an apology (honest or not) is because one or more others were offended. If nobody is offended, by definition there is nothing wrong with it.

So if I say something shockingly racist, but the only people around to hear it are my shockingly racist buddies, then it's totally OK because no-one is offended?

I'm late to this, but: yes.

Or rather, if you say something really offensive, like "Women should be allowed to read books, or even leave the house without covering their faces," it's not offensive because you probably aren't saying it in front of a Shia cleric.

If you say something that's intellectually unfashionable, but the people you talk to are unphased, I just don't understand the case for considering that a bad thing. Who is the wronged party? How were they harmed? What's society's interest in redressing this, and what's our mechanism for doing so?

What you're describing is moral relativism. If I kill someone that everyone hates, is that wrong? If I kill a homeless person that had no friends and no family so nobody notices they're dead, is that wrong?

The real question here is would you stand in front of the mirror, with no one around, and say to yourself "The women at this conference are a great perk!" without feeling bad?

It's tempting to think "I have these views about blacks/hispanics/asians/women/etc., but I know how to control my reactions and keep my mouth shut." The problem is that people communicate as much subconsciously as they do consciously.

Offensive comments are morally relative, though. Someone has to be offended, right?

In your examples, the victim certainly notices and cares; if they get a vote, they're going to vote "immoral." But if you did something "murderous" in absolute privacy--like, say, doing some target shooting--I don't think it would be considered equivalent to murder. Similarly, if you do something "offensive" and nobody is there to get offended, I don't see what the crime is.

Would it upset you if people were saying offensive things quietly to themselves in the privacy of their own homes? How would you propose to deal with that?

You're putting the cart before the horse. People are not upset because the wording was offensive. People are offended because the wording was upsetting. The flyer clearly objectified "Women". Objectification of any category of humans should be considered wrong in any context. This is not a case of moral relativism (or at least it shouldn't be).

There's no crime there. People have the right to say offensive things in the privacy of their own homes. Other people have the right to disagree with the first people, and to even voice their disagreement. What's the problem?

When I wrote "nobody" I meant nobody, not "nobody among those that happen to be within hearing distance". This includes the people I have an X opinion about. IOW if blacks/hispanics/women. etc are not offended by my opinion about them, is it still wrong?

Those are weasel words, non-apologies that only confirm the notion that the people who wrote this are actually sexist a-holes.

It's an underhanded way of blaming the people that are offended rather than genuinely apologizing for doing something offensive.

"We realize this was wrong and offensive, and we are very sorry" would have been sufficient. No groveling needed. Instead, they chose to blame the offended parties and preface their "apology" with lame excuses.

It's neither genuine nor an apology.

Look at when comedians say something offensive. They either realise they went too far, or they stand by their joke. I've never personally heard a situation where a comedian causes mass offence and weaselly apologizes saying he's sorry but wishes his audience would grow up. Because it doesn't happen, because they're in the business of tastefully offending people.

The problem is that douches like the guys running Boston API Jam have no social connection with women that they can't even understand why normal people are offended by this.

These non-apologies are pretty common from politicians ("Mistakes were made") to comedians (Adam Carolla: "I'm sorry my comments were hurtful. I'm a comedian, not a politician.") And there's a reason for that.

It this case it doesn't apply, it was just a lame attempt at humor. But in other cases there are whole organizations involved, with funding and lawyers and many of those organizations are simply bullies who manufacture controversies to show their importance (black hole/black hoe thing, Tracy Morgan offending some group). The best response would be to stand up to the bully: ramp up the joke, go further, but usually it would hurt too many bystanders who just happen to be in the group the bully pretends to represent or isn't feasible for other reasons so bullied public figures go with the next best thing -- a non-apology.

The alternative is to realize why it was offensive instead of just that people got offended in some abstract sense that is unrelated to anything you can comprehend. For bonus points, further show enough empathy that you realize that what you said now offends you, too, culminating in some kind of "Damn, I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that" apology.

And what if it doesn't offend them? Just because it offends you doesn't mean it should condemn them.

Men like women. Men are, speaking factually, the extreme majority in the tech industry. Don't be shocked if your values don't match those of others.

Upvoted. And I just wanted to give some encouragement. It's become commonplace here to get downvoted not because you're belligerent or off-topic, but simply because you hold an opposing viewpoint. Please don't let that discourage you from participating in conversations here.

Thank you!

I don't feel like I'm being sexist at all. Scoot didn't say "HEH! We have naked women bringing you beer!" They said "We're having women server you beer". This is a perk for some men. What's the problem? Women coders/developers are sexist and don't want to be served beer by women? So be it. I, as a man, will happily serve those women who feel offended in the same garb the women will be serving men.

It's not an inclusive way to advertise an event. Making a minority in a community feel like an event isn't really intended for them is bad.

Honestly, when these sorts of things happen, I'd love for every man in the world to just shut up for a minute. I have a hard time stomaching this whacked out form chivalry where men somehow have to fight on behalf of women because they're unable to defend themselves. I understand it's of far purer intent, but it seems just as sexist to me. Actually, it seems worse because it has a tinge of hypocrisy to it. I'd much rather get a woman's reaction to it in an environment where she feels safe to speak her mind (and the Internet provides some pretty good avenues for this).

I've been to a tech conference that started with a few women in attendance and they'd basically all walked out by mid-afternoon. It was a tech conference with alcohol like this one. As the day went on, the men were getting drunker and drunker. Some women left out of concern for their personal safety.

How's that for a woman's reaction?

Honest and helpful. Thanks.

My position is mostly selfish. I care about myself and I care about my future children. For myself, I'd like more women to show up to tech events because I generally enjoy mixed company. For my future children, I'd like them to feel comfortable in any industry they find interesting. (I also have that desire for most people in general, but it's particularly poignant when I think about potential children.)

There's little chivalry involved here. The advertisement for this event makes the tech industry worse for me.

As a side note, only considering the input of women on this issue is problematic when so few are involved in the first place.

That's fair. Although we really needn't limit ourselves to only women currently in tech. It's just hard to get a woman's perspective on the matter, which I think would be highly elucidating, when there's so many vocal guys offended on their behalf.

I think it's important to want to support women in tech for non-selfish reasons too. The idea that half the people in the world don't feel like they can pursue hacking because of unrelated issues is not acceptable.

Still, I agree with your self-interest arguments and would even add another:

I am tired of only ever working around guys all day. It has been long time since I worked with any non-guy low-level coders. Heck, bring in some transsexuals, either direction, I don't care. Just mix it up a bit. An all-male work environment becomes tedious after a while.

"I'd much rather get a woman's reaction to it in an environment where she feels safe to speak her mind (and the Internet provides some pretty good avenues for this)." Quite likely you are unaware that women bloggers as a community are continually the target of extreme and sexually explicit violent comments and death threats. But business as usual. People are always trying to shut up women and the men who support them.

I can somewhat understand the downvoters in this case. The discussion at hand is "should we accept objectification of women in the tech industry" with opinions ranging from "No, nothing even resembling that" (paraphrased) to "It's not that big a deal"[1]. To those closer to the first stance, we don't want those kinds of opinions to gain traction here, in this community. I've done that by commenting, others by downvoting. Ideally, every comment would get a response, but there are more of these "it's not a big deal" than there are original ideas being expressed. Really, the top comment[2] should be enough to convince you that this was not an OK move on API Jam's part.

[1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3731608

[2] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3731725

I don't think I understand your point, but to be clear:

I'm a man, and I like women. My like of women extends to not wanting them to be treated like beer-servants and told that they aren't welcome as equals at a coding event, because it would make me feel awful if someone did those things to me.

Empathy allows you to try to work out how something might feel from someone else's perspective, and is what should be used when trying to work out how to apologize for inadvertent offense.

This is my problem with this issue in general.

They are not beer servants. They are workers being paid to do a job.Its an event where women are paid to bring you a beverage. Will you rally against Friday's, Hooter's, and Buffalo Wild Wings next?

I have empathy; I also understand that you don't have to work at a job bringing beer to coders if you don't want to.

If they are workers being paid to do a job, why is their gender even mentioned in the flyer?

There's a big difference between understanding how something might offend someone else and equally being offended by it. I wasn't offended by this. I ran it by my wife, who happens to also be a programmer, and she wasn't offended by it either. Are we wrong or bad people? I mean, we see how others might be offended by it, so there's some level of empathy, but we're not grabbing our pitchforks over it.

On the other hand, we have friends that love bartending. The insinuation that they're not as good or equal to someone who wants to go into programming, or are nothing more than "beer-servants", could be construed as offensive as well. I'm guessing you're drawing from different experiences, so I'm not going to attribute malice to it. But these sorts of things have the ability to spin rapidly out of control.

When you say that you "ran it by your wife who happens to be a programmer and she wasn't offended by it either", are you then saying that your wife must then have a proxy for all women? That all women must then agree with your wife's point of view? Because she apparently is not offended, therefore no other woman should be offended? If she thinks it's ok then it must be ok because she's a woman? I wonder how many times this has been used against women? I know someone who is ok with this so therefore your argument is invalid.

I go to Octoberfest events where sexy female beer servers are advertised. A lot of women seem to attend as well.

That Oktoberfest isn't an industry event catering to professionals is no small difference.

Is it possible to have a programming event with an unprofessional attitude, or is that not allowed anymore?

It's possible to have any kind of event you want.

But you are not immune to the consequences of your actions. It should be no surprise that many professionals do not enjoy having their industry associated in the public's mind with juvenile, unprofessional antics and socially unacceptable behaviours, and will be quick to tell you so.

You are correct. Most men like women. However, there is a time and place for men to express their admiration for women. An event like this (as represented to prospective sponsors) is neither.

Maybe this can help explain. My recent ex-girlfriend is female, but is also bisexual and so likes women almost as much as I do. She was perfectly happy to comment on the attractiveness of the waitstaff to me (male or female), and appreciated when I did likewise to her. She'd be perfectly fine with a social event advertising attractive female waiters. I think she might even have been happy about the prospect of attractive female waitstaff at a hackathon too (she's also a programmer).

Listing the staff under the category of "Women" though, with the implication that these were going to be the only women at the event. And that would really piss her off.

Paul Graham has a nice essay on this topic: http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

Things that are "offensive" tend to change a lot, compared to e.g. things that are "incorrect." I've found that the best mental model is that they're intellectual allergies. I wouldn't knowingly serve someone a dish he was allergic to, and I'd apologize if I did it by accident, but I wouldn't feel ashamed. And my mental model would have to a running list of common allergies, not an over-arching theory of misfiring immune system reactions.

I mean, let's try this out: can you tell me why you, personally, are offended by depictions of The Prophet? What about a picture of two men holding hands? Or an insinuation that the Pharaoh is not, in fact, a god? There's just too big a cognitive burden to reverse-engineer everybody else's cultural or intellectual allergies. I'd prefer to work around them.

The phrasing of the squoot apology (and other similar ones) does not take responsibility for the action. It's a non-apology. It doesn't admit that they were offensive but instead implies that it was only bad that others were offended. It's about the placement of blame on the offended party instead of taking responsibility.

GOOD: I'm sorry that I hurt you when I punched you in the face.

BAD: I'm sorry that you were hurt when I punched you in the face.

The latter distances the puncher from the hurt in an unacceptable way.

It's not a mortal sin. But it's a sin, and should be punished. The "point" here isn't to elicit an apology, it's to make sure that everyone knows that the behavior is not acceptable and will not be tolerated. The condemnation is punishment, and a disincentive to do this in the future.

So no, there's really nothing to be said after making a sexist joke. You made a sexist joke, and everyone knows it. All alternatives are bad ones from the sexist joker's point of view. But obviously some are less bad than others.

This isn't christianity. There's no foolproof path to redemption by accepting Gloria Steinem as your personal savior. Just sit down and take it like, er, a man.

The reason why people aren't satisfied with that kind of apology is because it isn't an apology it's a "Oh we're being forced to say this, but we still think we're right and its funny and you're just a douche for complaining."

The whole point is that they're so totally out of touch with the real world that they don't even get that they demeaned women and worse they don't even understand how. It's not even that it was a joke, it's that they were actually selling it as a perk along with massages to "take a break and unwind" and by their apparent hiring policy for their waitress staff, I'm guessing the masseuses are likely <25 year old Asian women.

There's a huge difference between "we're sorry for our offensive behavior" and "we're sorry you were offended by our behavior."

The first admits you've done something legitimately wrong; the second only says that others were offended, perhaps illegitimately, and that wasn't your intent. The first is sorry for the action; the second, the reaction.

In this particular case, all they have to do is say "We're sorry - we were being sexist. We've removed the sexist language and we won't do it again." If they want to clarify, they could say they were being unthinkingly, not deliberately sexist, which is almost surely the case.

Jon Stewart had a rant on this not to long ago as Fox News tried to apologize for Rush Limbaugh's comments as "he's just an entertainer".

His statement was that there are repercussions to comedy no one gets to hide behind that the thin veil and say whatever they like without consequence.

Here's what I expect from these guys. Man up, take your licks and don't do it again.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-march-13-2012/the-vulg...

Its a relevant diatribe

They could demonstrate that they understand why this was offensive instead of the obtuse, head-patting response. "We now understand that _____ is offensive to _____ because of ____. In turn, it has _____ effects on our industry. Sorry!" It's not really that hard if you have a capacity for basic cognitive reasoning.

What my main point is, a person put up a bottled apology that follows all the rules, but it doesn't correct the behavior. It's a fix for the symptom, not the underlying problem.

Mr. Byrnes, it is a little more complicated than that.

Many of the people angry about this incident will, in another context, back up someone like Richard Dawkins when he offends. Dawkins happens to be one of my favorite authors, but he is quite provocative. And Heroku advertises the Dawkins Foundation as a success story:

  http://success.heroku.com/dawkins-foundation

  The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science 
  (RDFRS) supports scientific education and advances 
  critical thinking and an evidence-based understanding of 
  the natural world, in the quest to overcome religious 
  fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and human 
  suffering. The foundation’s namesake and founder, Richard 
  Dawkins, is a scientist and best-selling author of works 
  including The God Delusion, The Selfish Gene, and The 
  Blind Watchmaker.

As an objective fact, The God Delusion is surely a book that many millions of people around the world are on the record as finding "offensive" [1,2,3].

So the issue is really not whether a statement is offensive or not, or how the apology is phrased. It is whether the group that is offended has the power to force an apology.

[1] http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/65603...

[2] http://richarddawkins.net/articles/628795-duking-it-out-over...

[3] http://mattgrube.com/seminary-writings/dawkins-god-delusion-...

Not at all.

When deciding whether you think someone should apologize or not for an action, the issue is not whether the party they offended can force an apology, it's whether you believe that person's action was wrong.

Many of the people angry about this incident believe that sexism is wrong, but advocating atheism in Dawkins' manner is not wrong. Therefore they believe the sexist should apologize, and Dawkins should not. Their opinions are consistent, and it has nothing to do with force.

  Many of the people angry about this incident believe that 
  sexism is wrong, but advocating atheism in Dawkins' manner 
  is not wrong.

Right. However, the group of people who are against sexism are objectively much more culturally and economically powerful than the group of people who are against Dawkins. Heroku doesn't fear any lost business from supporting Dawkins, but it dropped Sqoot like a hot potato.

You could quantify this by comparing a Facebook-based StatusRank for the anti-Sqoots vs. the anti-Dawkins. The former group will have much higher socioeconomic status than the latter. Harvard graduates are much more likely to believe "sexism not ok, Dawkins ok" and high school dropouts are much more likely to believe the reverse.

That is, sexism is "not ok" and Dawkins is "ok" in this thread because these are the beliefs shared by the most powerful people in society. This has little to do with right and wrong and much to do with socioeconomic status.

Correlation is not causation.

You seem to be stating that Christians (the anti-Dawkins) are objectively (ie measurably) less culturally and economically powerful than Feminists (the anti-Sqoot). I'm assuming, as Heroku and Sqoot are American, you mean it as a general statement about the US, or at least the US tech industry.

I'd like to believe this was true. Could you offer any evidence?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com