Hacker News Reader

Comment by gfodor | Hacker News Reader

How many times are we going to keep hearing the non-apology apology: "We are sorry if some were offended..."? I am so tired of it, it has become a cliche. When did the business world/lawyers decide this was the optimal legal response to customers? My blood boils every time I read it as it is the most disingenuous, calculated, shallow tripe you can trot out when you fuck up. What ever happened to just owning up to your mistakes? What exactly are the massive consequences between saying "We're sorry" and "We're sorry some were offended"? Is it liability, lack of character, "best practices", what?

View on HN

Actually apologizing admits to wrongdoing, which opens one up to liability and other consequences. Not apologizing at all is seen as callous and only incites the mob against you. A non-apology apology is still enough to settle the mob but not enough to open one up to liability. The only downside is that it upsets intelligent people like you and I who are capable of actually parsing and understanding these kinds of statements. Most people are content with something that sounds like an apology.

Not apologizing at all is seen as callous and only incites the mob against you. A non-apology apology is still enough to settle the mob but not enough to open one up to liability.

Historically, I'd agree, but my observation (and opinion) is that real time mass communications and an ever dropping attention span mean that half-hearted apologies (or even sincere ones!) merely fan the flames, whereas radio silence lets the storm clouds pass because people's attention spans are so short.

That would sure be an interesting development, and I'll be on the lookout for it. But there's a very strong niche for people to deliberately sit around and fan the flames of outrage, and if anything that's become even easier as of late.

Somebody should quantify and do research on that. We can't rely on mere conjecture.

> Actually apologizing admits to wrongdoing, which opens one up to liability and other consequences.

I can't imagine that there are actual liability issues here; it's more than Dell (incorrectly, I suspect) thinks that using weasel words looks better than saying "oops, we're horribly thoughtless and incompetent".

I’m not sure where (legal) liability comes in play here. I don’t think there is a way to successfully sue Dell for this (nor do I think there should be).

In some cases there is legal liability. In others it's just a matter of not wanting to be on record admitting guilt for other reasons.

IANAL, but in various contexts, apologies actually work to defuse the situation and prevent legal action. I've read research into malpractice and product negligence that indicates that sincere apologies actually reduce lawsuits, because, in many cases, the lawsuits are sparked not by the initial negligent act, but rather by stone-walling. I can't find those references tonight, alas.

But there is this research into problem resolution for German Ebay customers

http://www.psmag.com/culture/were-sorry-not-all-apologies-ar...

that indicates that a real apology from a vendor is more effective than (some amount of) cash in getting a customer to withdraw negative evaluations.

That's probably true when dealing with decent people. I think the reason lawyers don't recommend that is because lawyers are professional assholes of a sort. I don't mean that as a slur on lawyers; I just mean that they're experts on what an asshole could do, and they use this knowledge to protect you from assholes. (Or alternatively, if you are an asshole, they help you achieve your aims.) Clearly an asshole would take a sincere apology and turn it around to crucify you. So lawyers recommend asshole-proof non-apologies instead.

This is, incidentally, also the rationale behind never talking to the police: unlike aggrieved customers, police more or less are professional assholes. It's not their fault per se, and it's not a slur on police officers, but even more than lawyers, police are more or less constrained by the adversarial nature of the criminal justice system to be total assholes almost all the time. Actually, this asshole theory seems to explain a lot about the legal system, for instance why divorcing couples seem to be total assholes to each other as soon as they both lawyer up.

Your point is that most people aren't assholes, and can be reasoned with. Fair enough! But there are assholes, and eventually you get bit by them, which is how big companies develop lawyerly antibodies to them. As for politicians, they're all lawyers already, and it's practically their job to be assholes to each other, and if they slip up there are plenty of assholes in the press to make up for it so appealing to the people's better nature is automatically more difficult.

I actually think there are lots of cases where it is perfectly warranted.

It's a big world; if you are on the world stage, it is quite difficult not to offend somebody no matter what you do. There are experts in the fields of diplomacy and etiquette who devote their careers to getting this stuff right, and usually even then there is someone offended about efforts to be so "proper". ;-)

So, I think it is a perfectly valid apology if basically the only thing you regretted about your actions was that it made someone upset. Most people don't get off on pissing other people off, but they do want to live their life and go about their business. That apology is perfect for that context.

What's freaky is when it is used for cases where you'd think there'd be a lot more that someone ought to be sorry for. What's even freakier is when someone everyone pretends it is apologizing for more than it is.

So, I think it is a perfectly valid apology if basically the only thing you regretted about your actions was that it made someone upset

This is what makes it a non-apology.

No, it doesn't. If you say something that offends somebody, what else is there to be sorry about? It's not like you killed somebody and offended somebody else, and are only apologizing the offending part. When you offend someone, that's the only bad thing that happens. Or, as comedian Steve Hughes puts it, nothing happens when you're offended.

Uhm, no, that’s not what apologies are about. When you apologize for something, you are also expressing regret for doing something. If you could decide again you would decide differently.

In this case, a honest apology would be one where Dell apologizes for hiring that moderator: if we could go back in time and hire a moderator again, we wouldn’t hire that person.

Maybe their apology for the offense is supposed to imply that (presumably, since they are apologizing, they want people to not be offended, one option for them to prevent that is to not hire people like that in the future), but why not say that directly?

(I think the view that offense doesn’t matter and can be safely ignored is extremely damaging. And besides, it’s not as though offense is the worst thing about this. Dell gave someone the stage who legitimizes very weird views that would be disastrous if they became – even more – widespread in society or even the basis for policy. That’s why people are offended. And that’s a very good reason to be offended. Yes, words do matter.)

I don't understand what you're saying. You say that an apology is an expression of regret, but then you say that Dell's apology isn't an expression of regret. Are you just saying that the Dell statement should have been more explicit?

I'm not sure he agrees that it is an apology.

I think it is more fair to say is that they expressed regret, but the only regret they expressed is that other people were offended by what they did. The conclusion is that if they had it to do over again, and they could find a way to do it without offending those people (keeping it secret perhaps?), they'd do it.

But finding a way to do it without offending people is a perfectly fine solution, since the only bad thing that happened was that people were offended. I made that point in a previous comment.

>> So, I think it is a perfectly valid apology if basically the only thing you regretted about your actions was that it made someone upset > This is what makes it a non-apology. reply

This issue is one that my views have changed on over the years, and I've spent some time thinking about it. I currently do sometimes give that "non-apology", if you will. What else do I say when A) someone was hurt by something I said, but B) I don't know what I should have said differently? I genuinely feel bad for someone who is hurt by my actions, even if I feel that I couldn't have predicted/avoided it.

It's kind of like when two people start talking at once--there's no real fault there; you can apologize without feeling "man, I really should have not started talking", assuming there were no cues.

There's nothing wrong with giving non-apologies in some circumstances. All it does is indicate in a diplomatic way that you weren't really sorry for what you did. If there was actually a really good reason for you to be sorry (ie. inviting an outspoken sexist radical to moderate at your event), that's a good reason for others to be pissed at your unapologetic response though!

I don't understand this viewpoint. What is an apology? An apology, at least to me, is a statement that you regret an action you performed, and hence are saying that if you were transported back in time and could relive that moment, you would have acted differently. Saying you are "sorry people were offended" does not imply that you would have acted differently.

If you do not wish you would have acted differently, do not apologize. If you do, then perform a real apology saying you made a mistake and wish to correct it. If you simply say that you regret others being offended, all you are really saying is you lament the fact there are people that exist that were offended by your statement. Ie, it is a shame that people disagree with you or are offended by your words, much like it's a shame that a stranger got a flat tire or that science has yet to cure the common cold. Ie, it's their problem, or at the very least, an existential observation of how you think things ought to be, not something that is your problem or responsibility to correct.

Well, for me personally, if I've offended someone seriously then that itself is reason enough for me to regret the action under most circumstances. I might regret it more if I am able to emphasize with their offense, but just offending them is enough.

But if you're attempting to apologize in public, it doesn't make sense to try to explain that. You can say what you did was wrong, if you think so. If you do not then just apologize simply without dressing it up with qualifications. It doesn't mean the apology is necessarily insincere.

Some information is too delicate to transmit reliably in a public forum.

> You can say what you did was wrong, if you think so. If you do not then just apologize simply without dressing it up with qualifications. It doesn't mean the apology is necessarily insincere.

If you don't specify what you are apologizing for, it leaves it to each listener to interpret what you feel sorry about. If you kill someone, and then say "I'm sorry", that could mean any number of things, "I am so sorry that I murdered him in his sleep so that I could take all his money", "I am sorry that while I was trying to take all his money, he caught me, so I killed him to stay out of jail", "I am sorry that I brought a gun with me to a robbery, because once he caught me, I had to either kill him or let him kill me", "I am sorry I was robbing him in the first place, I shouldn't steal, and killing him only made it so much worse", "that guy stole from me, and I was just trying to get the money back, but when he pulled a gun on me and said he'd kill me rather than let me take it back, I felt I had to kill him; in retrospect, I wish I had thought of another way to get the money back", "that guy was going to kill me then take my money, and I'm sorry that this was the case, but the only way I was going live was to kill him right then and there"....

While some of those examples do offer an explanation, one can be specific about what one is apologizing for without offering an explanation (indeed, I think that's exactly what Dell did, and in their case I believe that is shameful, because they ought to be sorry for a lot more).

I didn't mean that you don't say what you're sorry for, just that it may not pay to be too specific in some cases.

Ideally we'd all say exactly what was on our mind all the time and no one would ever get hurt, but sometimes tact is important.

Also, in the case of something like killing someone you might well place a higher value on exonerating yourself to the maximum extent possible than on potentially (re)offending someone.

>I don't understand this viewpoint. What is an apology? An apology, at least to me, is a statement that you regret an action you performed, and hence are saying that if you were transported back in time and could relive that moment, you would have acted differently. Saying you are "sorry people were offended" does not imply that you would have acted differently.

Yes, but the world does not owe us to deserve apologies every time that we are offended.

Sometimes we are offended, but we shouldn't be (because we are wrong), other times we are offended and it is arguable if we should or should not be (because it's a complex issue that can be seen either way).

So people can both be sorry that you were offended and _still_ feel like they have the right to say what they said. I.e they don't like offending people, but they feel that what they did was right and you should not feel offended.

Here's an extreme example:

I might say in a conversation that "Republicans are creeps". This might offend someone. Now, I could truly feel sorry for making that other person feel bad, but that does n't mean that I also regret my opinion.

The key here is that other people are not summed entirely in that one _thing_ that I might have offended them on (ie. my friend is not described entirely by the fact that he is a card-carrying republican). So, I might like them as people, as friends, as colleagues, etc, and feel sorry if I made them feel bad, but still dislike that _thing_ about them.

Your comment is contradictory. You start by saying that an apology implies regret. Then, you say that Dell's apology does not imply regret. Why not? If they're apologizing for offending people, then according to your first claim they must regret offending people, which means they would choose to not offend people if they were transported back in time. I'm not sure what more you want from Dell.

> An apology, at least to me, is a statement that you regret an action you performed, and hence are saying that if you were transported back in time and could relive that moment, you would have acted differently.

I've been trying to think of how to express a response to this which is clear. Here's my best shot.

One can regret actions one performed, or actions one didn't perform. If you were to express such regret for either, it'd be deemed an apology.

Strictly speaking, "regret" doesn't imply that could you relive the moment, you would have acted differently. As per the dictionary definition: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/regret

1. To feel sorry, disappointed, or distressed about.

The negative consequences of an action or inaction is apparent only in hindsight. You might do something differently if transported back in time, if you somehow had that hindsight, but feel absent that impossible scenario, you acted as could be expected by anyone, including yourself.

Finally, you may have faced what amounts to a no-win situation, where there was no way to choose outcomes that would avoid negative consequences for someone else without betraying some defining principle by which you choose to live your life. You may regret your actions (or lack thereof) and their consequences for others, without feeling there was a way to do better.

Really, there is a lot more nuance and variation available on this.

Can you give evidence for what you believe in?

This has nothing to do with being "upset" or "offended" or "proper" or "etiquette".

It has to do with little girls growing up thinking there are entire categories of things they can't do. And it has to do with grown women being unable to do their jobs because too much of their time is spend dealing with the fact that their coworkers can't handle working with a woman. I'm not "offended" that Dell is contributing to that, I'm sad.

> it is quite difficult not to offend somebody no matter what you do.

Avoiding having a guy that is blatantly sexist and misogynistic is not exactly hard nowadays.

> How many times are we going to keep hearing the non-apology apology: "We are sorry if some were offended..."?

About as many times as we make powerful people apologise in public, especially when they're not really feeling guilty. And it's not always in that form, sometimes it's closer to Clinton's "mistakes were made". While most non-apologies are pretty standard, there is some variation and innovation.

According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistakes_were_made), some version of "mistakes were made" dates back to Ulysses S. Grant, though it seems that Nixon popularized it.

The thing I don't understand about this is that it seems to me that when public figures, companies, etc come out with genuine apologies, it ends up being a net positive. They garner respect from their friends and their enemies. They get good press. They often manage to repair most of the relationships that were in question.

It almost seems like that even if someone were not feeling guilty, the logical thing would be to pretend like you are and submit a real apology. I find it hard to believe that folks who are already so good at stretching the truth to their own benefit like politicans would somehow let their personal ego and pride get in the way of them making a fake "real" apology if that would benefit them the most. It seems to me that there is some underlying calculus that all these actors have made that issuing a bogus one has a better net effect that a real one. I suppose I should be thankful that if this is the case then at least we are going to be able to tell the bullshitters from the honest people, since only the honest ones will be making genuine apologies despite their potential for harm.

> It seems to me that there is some underlying calculus that all these actors have made that issuing a bogus one has a better net effect that a real one.

This is the reason why I think non-apologies are a genuinely advantageous long-term strategy, especially for men in position of power. I don't believe it to be an entirely concious strategy resulting from some cold calculation but it seems common among leaders, from soccer team captains to presidents. Maybe some alpha/beta atavism.

That is not to say that it's optimal. Throwing a sincere apology every once in a while, especially when it's sincere, may work well.

"I find it hard to believe that folks who are already so good at stretching the truth to their own benefit like politicans would somehow let their personal ego and pride get in the way of them making a fake "real" apology if that would benefit them the most."

I'm sure a lot of the 'real' apologies you hear are exactly of that nature. But ego and pride don't get checked at the door when someone enters politics - far from it. Not many politicians have the discipline to be perfect PR machines at all times. Many of them seem to oscillate between politically optimized and natural states.

"It seems to me that there is some underlying calculus that all these actors have made that issuing a bogus one has a better net effect that a real one."

If we're talking about actual politicians rather than corporate spokespeople then there's always the possibility of a little dog-whistling going on. If you trot out the standard pro forma apology then most of the people are somewhat aggrieved and those who actually liked or agreed with your original statement or action can say that the apology is just PR and you don't really mean it. I can't see that happening much outside of actual politics.

"I suppose I should be thankful that if this is the case then at least we are going to be able to tell the bullshitters from the honest people, since only the honest ones will be making genuine apologies despite their potential for harm."

I don't think it's a reliable guide for the reason I stated at the top.

This is a arguable subject. For me personally I prefer a company that took some risks with their presentation and failed, over one that had some human-bot-figure reading the corporate-lawyer approved cards. Sure, based on the narrative of that visitor the whole story comes across very negative, but then again I would find it utterly amusing to have some insult-comedian perform at a corporate event just to watch all the let-me-tweet-how-offended-i-am faces.

This wasn't someone who was telling insulting jokes just to get laughs. This was someone whose repeatedly stated and well known opinion is that a historically repressed group don't have an equal or valid place in the workplace.

It's not a joke by itself, it's joking of a kind with those bully makes while tormenting their victim in other ways.

I prefer a company that took some risks with their presentation and failed, over one that had some human-bot-figure reading the corporate-lawyer approved cards.

That statement almost makes it sound as if those were the only two options for presentations.

Theres a thing called professionalism. It is no more appropriate to invite the mocking of women in the workplace at a conference than it would be to mock multiculturalism, and support that only privileged white males deserve good jobs. It is not appropriate, and reflects very badly on the character and judgment of the execs at Dell. I wouldn't be surprised if this severely impacts their ability to recruit competent employees; no self-respecting man or woman should want to be employed by bigots.

>And it's not always in that form, sometimes it's closer to Clinton's "mistakes were made".

That phrase far predates Clinton, probably Nixon or earlier was the first I heard it attributed. There is also a great book by that title (Mistakes were made, but not by me) that talks about the psychological drive to quell dissonance and how it can lead to absurd scenarios.

Well it was either Reagan, or Nixon, but never Clinton.

I think you owe the Clintons an apology.

But that's exactly what they're sorry for. It's not like Dell's going to say "We're sorry we hired a jerk." That implies that they meant to hire a jerk. "We're sorry you're offended" means "We didn't do this out of malice, but we recognize that it was hurtful regardless, and that's why we're sorry."

I always get the feeling that what they're really supposed to do is grovel--to admit that it wasn't an honest mistake, but that they really were being evil, and that they've finally been caught and forced to own up. I don't think people are comfortable with diversity when it means that some people think it's totally okay to do something that other people would find horribly offensive.

I'm sorry if that's offensive. But that's all I'm sorry for.

"We're sorry. We made a mistake." == taking responsibility for what they did.

"We're sorry you feel that way." == passing the responsibility back onto the other person.

> But that's exactly what they're sorry for. It's not like Dell's going to say "We're sorry we hired a jerk." That implies that they meant to hire a jerk.

Say what? That doesn't imply that at all. It implies they made an error of judgement, be it due to poor due diligence, a misperception of what is appropriate, weighing the options between "controversy" and "politically correct" and falling too far to the one side, and so on. It has nothing to do with intent, it has to do with making an error and telling your customers/audience that you learned from the error and will not make a similar one in the future.

Then it's not enough. If they aren't sorry for blatant sexism (despite Dell global policies) then they should be. And if they aren't they should lose sales. IMHO :-)

What would be the better apology? Giving one million dollars to everyone in the audience, for mental pain inflicted?

Might be liability, but it seems like PR flacks tend to also work for politicians who have a long history of not actually apologizing.

I do think it is the correct response to nutjobs - so whenever I see this, I read it as a statement that the company is REALLY saying "I disagree with your points completely: still, I would prefer if you weren't offended right now!"

If a nutjob were to tell you, "Hey gfodor, your comment is extremely offensive to those of us working in public relations. We're the people who are actually trying to placate the population, yet you paint us as disingenuous, calculating, and shallow. Even though we have NO other job than to placate the public after we mess up. That's the ONE THING we do. How can you be so offensive to us?"

Then the proper response would be "Well, I'm very sorry if you are offended. I do like companies to take genuine corrective action, and any company that has public relations employees who make true apologies out of regret for the hurt and other negative effects they have caused, especially if these people also have enough power and will within the organization to effect policies to ensure the company can't do such a thing in the future, is a company that I support."

see, the nutjob was completely misreading you. You don't have to apologize to them.

This is the CORRECT use for "Well, I'm sorry you feel this way." It means you disagree, but still, would prefer the other side see things correctly. You care about them, but you stand by your actions.

In summary, I completely agree with you. But given the number of nutjobs out there, sometimes a nutjob-placating response is appropriate. Whenever I see nutjobs attacking a company for completely stupid reasons, I am glad to see this response trotted out. In the present instance, like you, I am not happy to see it.

Also, if an intelligent person uses this formula with me, "I'm sorry you feel this way" it means that they are interested in my understanding and feelings, and interested in talking about why I feel this way, but feel that they are justified (without crossing their arms and lifting their chin about it). This is very valuable feedback, and can open the dialogue to where either I or this person modifies their view. It's a lot better than just shutting down or blindly apologizing! No one should apologize 'genuinely' just to placate people, if they feel they did the right thing. They should at least give the reasons for their actions. On the other hand, if they know they did do the wrong thing, then they should take responsibility for it.

It's either 100% lack of spine or 100% no clue.

Look at how well startups apologise when they get things wrong compared to long-established companies. They admit wrong and seek to put things right as soon as they are called on it. This is not just good PR: It's good morality, but it takes backbone.

Startups, though, are still run by their founders: people who know what they started their company to achieve and what moral code they were determined to adhere to while they achieved it…

…Dell on the other hand is, these days, run by some guy called "Michael Dell". Oh. Hang on.

I've been on hacker news long enough to know that many startups are just as bad at apologizing. Some established companies are very good making things right. I don't think you can generalize so easily.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com