Apologies as a weapon?

[CFLarsen]

I don't know what Bennie's intentions were (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63927), but let's say that his intentions were not to insult Muslims (technically, you can't insult Islam, because you can't insult a concept). Let's say he said something that was perceived as insulting by others, but wasn't intended as an insult.

Why should he apologize? He can express regret that other people have perceived him wrong, but that is merely a regret that other people misunderstood him - meaning "I'm sorry you're a dope".

But why apologize? These days, it seems like we are using demands for apologies as a weapon: It doesn't matter what the intent was, if I am (or: claim to be) offended, I can demand an apology! And woe unto him who refuse to give it!

It's a win-win situation for those who demand apologies: If they get it, they have proved that the other party was wrong. If they don't get it, they have clearly showed the other party to be oafish.

Any responses to this post will be considered offensive, and I demand an apology!

[Dr Adequate]

So what would you do if you saw an air marshal demanding an apology?

[Suddenly]

Sorry to make you cry.

Relax.

R & C

[Mycroft]

Well, in general there are certainly times when it is appropriate to ask for an apology, and appropriate to give one. The trick is knowing when.

[Darth Rotor]

So what would you do if you saw an air marshal demanding an apology?
Uncage the tiger?

Now, if he attacked me with a pointed stick . . . :D

DR

[CFLarsen]

Well, in general there are certainly times when it is appropriate to ask for an apology, and appropriate to give one. The trick is knowing when.

That doesn't address the issue: If the intent was not to offend, is it appropriate to demand an apology?

[Darth Rotor]

That doesn't address the issue: If the intent was not to offend, is it appropriate to demand an apology?
The subjective nature of the interaction requires one to delve into the motivations of both the demander and the requestor. Is the requestor sincere? Is the requestor posturing in order to make a point? What evidence supports either presumption.

I am curious: what rubric are you using to determine the "appropriateness" of the request? Emily Post's Manners and Ettiquette Guide? Robert's Rules of Order? Danish Custom?

DR

[CFLarsen]

The subjective nature of the interaction requires one to delve into the motivations of both the demander and the requestor. Is the requestor sincere? Is the requestor posturing in order to make a point? What evidence supports either presumption.

But is it up to the "requestor", as you so rather unexpectedly eloquently put it, to determine if an apology is appropriate?

I am curious: what rubric are you using to determine the "appropriateness" of the request? Emily Post's Manners and Ettiquette Guide? Robert's Rules of Order? Danish Custom?

I am looking at intent.

If I say "You are (whatever)", and I don't mean to be offensive, but you - using whatever standards you are using - find it offensive - or merely say it is offensive - should I apologize to you? If so, why?

[Darth Rotor]

I am looking at intent.

If I say "You are (whatever)", and I don't mean to be offensive, but you - using whatever standards you are using - find it offensive - or merely say it is offensive - should I apologize to you? If so, why?
The answer is a variable. If I (the initial speaker) have a stake in your good will (the offended party) then an apology is in order at unintentional offense, with that qualifier clearly presented in the apology.

If not, there is no need, unless the speaker has a need to feel charitable.

If, on the other hand, an impression is being made to third parties, a valuation must be made.

If my concern is to seem generous, then an apology is a good tactic.

If the concern is to present the requestor as unreasonable, then one is not appropriate, and a counter protestation of innocence of intent (good point) is appropriate.

Intent is to be balanced with perceived value of the interaction, if I understand your question correctly.

Otherwise, I have to go back to asking what social rule or convention is being presumed in the first place.

DR

[HarryKeogh]

it always seemed to me that an apology should be genuine and from the heart. If I have to demand someone apologizes it shows an unwillingness on their part to apologize thus rendering the apology insincere and essentially, to me, worthless.

[BPSCG]

it always seemed to me that an apology should be genuine and from the heart. If I have to demand someone apologizes it shows an unwillingness on their part to apologize thus rendering the apology insincere and essentially, to me, worthless."Mommy, Harry called me stupid!"
"Harry, you apologize to your sister right now!"
"Aw sis, I'm sorry you're stupid."

First time I heard that joke, I laughed so hard I kicked the slats out of my palypen.

[Mycroft]

That doesn't address the issue: If the intent was not to offend, is it appropriate to demand an apology?

Well, I think the real issue here is that the person who demands the apology is asserting that you don’t have the right to say/do whatever it is he’s demanding an apology for. If you do apologize, then you’re acknowledging that he’s right, or that you’re not willing to assert yourself over it.

[Skeptic]

I don't know what Bennie's intentions were (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=63927), but let's say that his intentions were not to insult Muslims (technically, you can't insult Islam, because you can't insult a concept). Let's say he said something that was perceived as insulting by others, but wasn't intended as an insult.

Why should he apologize? He can express regret that other people have perceived him wrong, but that is merely a regret that other people misunderstood him - meaning "I'm sorry you're a dope".

But why apologize? These days, it seems like we are using demands for apologies as a weapon: It doesn't matter what the intent was, if I am (or: claim to be) offended, I can demand an apology! And woe unto him who refuse to give it!

It's a win-win situation for those who demand apologies: If they get it, they have proved that the other party was wrong. If they don't get it, they have clearly showed the other party to be oafish.

Any responses to this post will be considered offensive, and I demand an apology!

Since you asked, here's (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1927065#post1927065) why they're doing it.

[CFLarsen]

Intent is to be balanced with perceived value of the interaction, if I understand your question correctly.

But, since we can never know if anyone will find what we say or do offensive, how can we balance it?

it always seemed to me that an apology should be genuine and from the heart. If I have to demand someone apologizes it shows an unwillingness on their part to apologize thus rendering the apology insincere and essentially, to me, worthless.

That's assuming that an apology should be given at all.

Well, I think the real issue here is that the person who demands the apology is asserting that you don’t have the right to say/do whatever it is he’s demanding an apology for.

What/who gives him that right?

If you do apologize, then you’re acknowledging that he’s right, or that you’re not willing to assert yourself over it.

And if you don't apologize?

Since you asked, here's (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1927065#post1927065) why they're doing it.

Perhaps.

[slingblade]

But, since we can never know if anyone will find what we say or do offensive, how can we balance it?

That's a bit too broad, isn't it? I know what people in my close circle find offensive, generally. It's harder to tell with strangers, yes, but in those cases, I speak with more care. Unless I'm trying to offend you for some reason, and then I won't leave you much room for doubt.

Empathy might keep one from being inadvertently offensive.


That's assuming that an apology should be given at all.

We all have our own rule books. When does yours say apologies "should" be given?


What/who gives him that right?

The same what/who which gave you the right to offend him so deeply that he's not hinting or asking for an apology, but demanding one. For me, that would be an obvious offense.

And if you don't apologize?

You don't care how he feels; you don't agree you were offensive; you meant to offend; or planet x option.

[CFLarsen]

That's a bit too broad, isn't it? I know what people in my close circle find offensive, generally. It's harder to tell with strangers, yes, but in those cases, I speak with more care. Unless I'm trying to offend you for some reason, and then I won't leave you much room for doubt.

Empathy might keep one from being inadvertently offensive.

Perhaps. But empathy can also be taken so far that you don't say anything at all, for fear that someone, somewhere, might be offended.

We all have our own rule books. When does yours say apologies "should" be given?

Read the OP: I am not saying that apologies should be given.

The same what/who which gave you the right to offend him so deeply that he's not hinting or asking for an apology, but demanding one. For me, that would be an obvious offense.

And what/who is that?

You don't care how he feels; you don't agree you were offensive; you meant to offend; or planet x option.

I am talking about the situation where I don't agree I was offensive. What, then?

[Skeptic]

The same what/who which gave you the right to offend him so deeply that he's not hinting or asking for an apology, but demanding one. For me, that would be an obvious offense.

Suppose you were my wife, and dinner wasn't ready when I came home from work. Suppose further that, instead of fixing dinner myself or perhaps making a long face and asking you to make dinner (if I had a hard day at work and was really tired), I fly into a rage, DEMAND an apology from you, threathening that if you don't grovel and apologize this instant, I'll beat you half to death.

Would that mean not having supper ready was a incredible act of awful disrespect against me, because obviously I was offended deeply enough to demand an apology--and even threathened violence? No, it would just mean I'm a violent thug, that's all.

Same here. The Islamists are just violent thugs who want everybody to do their bidding. Flying into a violent rage every time anybody is in the least bit "disrespectful" towards them is just part of the startegy. It's a very popular bullying tactic, the same tactic abusive husbands use to keep their wives in constant fear and obedience.

[Darat]

I'm always willing to apologise if I've given inadvertent offense - after all if my intent was not to offend then it is right I apologise however that is not the same as apologising for holding a particular view or apologising for expressing it and indeed at times it may be necessary to say "I am sorry I offended you and whilst I appreciate my voicing such an opinion may offend you again in the future I will continue to express my opinion". I think that is the only way to handle contentious issues.

It would also make me more appreciative of the affect my opinion may have on others. However that is not the same as saying I wouldn't say it again in case it again caused offensive - just that I believe in civil behaviour and when I do not think it is necessary to express an opinion that I know others may find offensive I do not express such an opinion.

BPSCG posted it as joke but there is a lot of truth in it:

"Mommy, Harry called me stupid!"
"Harry, you apologize to your sister right now!"
"Aw sis, I'm sorry you're stupid."

I'm allowed out of my playpen more these days but I still find that funny.

[BPSCG]

I'm always willing to apologise if I've given inadvertent offenseBut do you apologize if the person demanding the apology gets offended at almost anything? Do you apologize if the person demanding the apology always attributes your words to malice, and never attributes them to ignorance? Do you apologize if the person demanding the apology is someone who looks for insult and injury every time you open your mouth?

[Pyrrho]

I agree that some groups use being offended as a political tool and rhetorical device. This is the Age of Outrage. "We've been greviously offended! We're outraged! We demand thus-and-so!" It's convenient for news headlines and rabble-rousing.

On the other hand, if someone says or writes something that by any measure is offensive, the phrase "I didn't mean to offend anyone," is not a valid defense. When we apologize for an offenseive statement we did not know was offensive, we are apologizing for our ignorance. The act of apology is a means of assuring the other party--without resorting to the "I didn't meant offend," argument (which actually only compounds the original offense)--that we recognize their discomfort. We do not have to agree with their assessment. We are merely recognizing that our words bothered them.

Not everything requires an apology. There are other ways to acknowledge people. For example, yesterday, I was working with an Asian woman. I was removing first-name initials from various names in a document. There was an Asian name, and I hesitated. I commented, "I'm not sure about Oriental names--should we remove the initials on those?" She hit me in the shoulder and said, "It's Asian, not Oriental." Now, I could have apologized for my ignorance; all I said was, "Oh, ok, thanks." Acknowledgment accomplished, and no apology tendered. The apology is implicit in my acknowledgement and acceptance of the correction.

[HarryKeogh]

and what's the deal with stores feeling the need to apologize for their appearance during a renovation. I mean, c'mon!

[Foolmewunz]

and what's the deal with stores feeling the need to apologize for their appearance during a renovation. I mean, c'mon!

That's "apology" as advertising slogan. It means "we're sorry if you spend less here because you don't like the fumes and dust and can't find the Clinique counter."

[senorpogo]

From my days on the debate team in school, I learned that one of the most effective ways to win a debate is to control what is and isn't permissable. If evidence for point A is weak, better completely avoid that point or, if one can, best to show why point A isn't even worth talking about.

I see the demand for an apology as a similar tactic. To say, "we're offended about your attacks against point A", means that, if the attacker acquiesces, the demander has effictively controlled what is and isn't permissable in the debate. The hope is to control what can and can't be said so that all criticism can be completely avoided.

I also noticed this in an CNN article about the apology:

"Of course as we know the meaning of jihad can only be understood by Muslims," Budianto told the crowd. "Only Muslims can understand what jihad is. It is impossible that jihad can be linked with violence, we Muslims have no violent character."

Again, a different tactic with the same goal: limiting what critics of Islam can say by contending that, as non-Muslims, they can never understand it. This seems like pure rubbish to me. One can't know something unless he's a card carrying member of organization X? I don't think knowledge works that way.

So as to the original question, I am opposed to apologizing for perceived insults. By doing so, you're effectively saying that certain ideas and concepts, (stuff that may be hurtful but essential topics in getting to the root of the problem), are somehow out-of-bounds.

[Darat]

But do you apologize if the person demanding the apology gets offended at almost anything?


If I did it without intent or knowledge that what I said would cause ofense yes. It's just part of the set of manenrs I was brought up to follow.


Do you apologize if the person demanding the apology always attributes your words to malice, and never attributes them to ignorance?


You're now extending the point beyond what I was commenting on and when talking about such matters in these very general terms it's hard to respond with a universal "yes" or "no" - since the type of situation you describe has rarely happened to me I've dealt with each such occurrence on a case by case base. I think pretty much on the whole I would still offer my apologies.


Do you apologize if the person demanding the apology is someone who looks for insult and injury every time you open your mouth?

That would be their problem not mine but a I said above I've rarely encountered people who have acted in such a way toward me so I would say yes. In fact come to think of it I could point out that my posts in this forum (especially Forum Management!) indicate that I am willing to offer apologies no matter what the past interactions may have been.

[CFLarsen]

Doesn't apologizing (in the way we are discussing here) imply an admission of error?

[Pyrrho]

Doesn't apologizing (in the way we are discussing here) imply an admission of error?
Yes.

[CFLarsen]

Yes.

That's the problem, isn't it?

You can make someone guilty of something, simply by declaring you are offended.

[Pyrrho]

That's the problem, isn't it?

You can make someone guilty of something, simply by declaring you are offended.
It's kind of like a witch hunt, isn't it?

The cry of "I'm offended!" doesn't make the alleged offender guilty. Nevertheless, the mob might believe them to be guilty anyway. Whether or not a person is genuinely guilty is debatable, which is why reason and rationality are so important. Guilty of what, though?

[Soapy Sam]

When pontificating (?) on matters of considerable importance, it is best to tell the truth. In such matters, one should never apologise for honesty. Those who cannot face the truth should be ashamed of their shortcomings.

If one does not know the truth, it is best to keep one's gob shut.

[CFLarsen]

It's kind of like a witch hunt, isn't it?

The cry of "I'm offended!" doesn't make the alleged offender guilty. Nevertheless, the mob might believe them to be guilty anyway. Whether or not a person is genuinely guilty is debatable, which is why reason and rationality are so important. Guilty of what, though?

It isn't necessarily the mob that will believe it. Aren't we well on our way to accept this kind of behavior as a norm in society? If you demand an apology, the other guy is automatically guilty?

[T'ai Chi]

Pyrrho is correct.

[Pyrrho]

It isn't necessarily the mob that will believe it. Aren't we well on our way to accept this kind of behavior as a norm in society? If you demand an apology, the other guy is automatically guilty?
I don't think so, although fallacious accusations are nothing new.

[CFLarsen]

I don't think so, although fallacious accusations are nothing new.

Unfortunately, it is deploringly easy to find stories about such demands:

College Newspaper Removes Offensive Jesus Cartoons

A University of Virginia student newspaper on Friday removed from its Web site cartoons featuring Jesus Christ that prompted a barrage of e-mails to the paper and school from people who thought the comics were blasphemous.

The Charlottesville, Virginia, university and The Cavalier Daily received about 2,500 messages about the comics, many of them form-letter e-mails that were overwhelmingly from people outside the school community.

The strips were removed at the request of the artist, U.Va. student Grant Woolard.

"The sole intent of my comic strip is to present situations that provoke thought and amusement," Woolard said in a statement on the newspaper's Web site. "As this comic did not achieve that goal, I have requested that it be taken down from the Cavalier Daily website. I apologize for the offense that this comic has produced."

The Jesus cartoons ran in The Cavalier Daily's Aug. 23 and 24 editions and featured "Christ on a Cartesian Coordinate Plane," with the figure of Jesus crucified on X and Y axes of a mathematical graph. Another, "A Nativity Ob-scene," showed Joseph and the Virgin Mary talking about Mary's rash, with her saying, "I swear, it was immaculately transmitted!"
Source (http://www.christianpost.com/article/20060916/24563.htm)

The cartoonist made fun of the religion, and not the people believing in the religion.

DeLay noted that Democratic candidate Dustin McDaniel, a state representative from Jonesboro, didn’t cast a vote on three military bills in the 2005 session of the General Assembly. He said McDaniel’s voting record is “hostile to veterans and to our military.”

“I’m not sure how someone can call himself a patriot if he can’t support our men and women in uniform,” DeLay said.

DeLay noted that McDaniel didn’t vote on a bill creating a special license plate for disabled veterans, a bill giving disabled veterans’ children free tuition at state colleges and universities, and a bill that appropriated money for the state Military Department. The tuition and appropriation bills passed the House by wide margins, and the license plate bill died in a Senate committee.

In a quickly called news conference later Thursday, McDaniel surrounded himself with top retired and current military officers and attacked DeLay for impugning his patriotism.

“He should apologize for it,” McDaniel said. “I’m a strong, constant supporter of our veterans and our men and women in uniform.”
Source (http://www.nwanews.com/adg/News/166740/)

A politician should apologize for thinking another politician is not patriotic? You should rename Capitol Hill "Via Dolorosa".

On some occasions, publications with controversial religious themes provoked outrage. In December 2005 the World Hindu Youth Organization (WHYO) protested the short film, "Shinta Obong," a film based on a story in "Ramayana," a holy Hindu book, for deviating from the original story. The filmmaker, Garin Nugroho, met with the Hindu community in Bali in January 2006 to apologize.
Source (http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/m-news+article+storyid-16223.html)

A film based on a story results in an apology for deviating from the original story? Gee, I DEMAND an apology from all Americans for making a mockery of Hans Christian Andersen!! (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044685/)

Go on! I'm offended!!

[Pyrrho]

Real crime still requires due process.

[CFLarsen]

Real crime still requires due process.

While I agree with your assessment of the Danny Kaye movie, the issue is that I am OFFENDED and therefore, you are automatically guilty!!

It's scary so easy it is, isn' it?

[Pyrrho]

While I agree with your assessment of the Danny Kaye movie, the issue is that I am OFFENDED and therefore, you are automatically guilty!!

It's scary so easy it is, isn' it?
Only if I accept the guilt.

[BPSCG]

It's kind of like a witch hunt, isn't it?

The cry of "I'm offended!" doesn't make the alleged offender guilty. Nevertheless, the mob might believe them to be guilty anyway. Whether or not a person is genuinely guilty is debatable, which is why reason and rationality are so important. Guilty of what, though?Straight out of Catch-22:"Why'd you steal it" [a plum tomato - BPSCG] "from Colonel Cathcart if you didn't want it?"
"I didn't steal it from Colonel Cathcart!"
"Then why are you so guilty, if you didn't steal it?"
"I'm not guilty!"
"Then why would we be questioning you if you weren't guilty?" "Chaplain," he continued, looking up, "we accuse you of the commission of crimes and infractions we don't even know about yet. Guilty or innocent?"
"I don't know, sir. How can I say if you you don't tell me what they are?"
"How can we tell you if we don't know?"
"Guilty," decided the colonel.
"Sure he's guilty," agreed the major. "If they're his crimes and infractions, he must have committed them."

[CFLarsen]

Only if I accept the guilt.

Nope. It doesn't matter what you do, you are guilty either way:

If you apologize, you are guilty (because you accept the guilt).

If you don't, you are guilty of not accepting the guilt.

Get accused, and you are condemned, no matter what you do.

[Pyrrho]

Nope. It doesn't matter what you do, you are guilty either way:

If you apologize, you are guilty (because you accept the guilt).

If you don't, you are guilty of not accepting the guilt.

Get accused, and you are condemned, no matter what you do.
Not so, even if the accuser thinks so.

[Pyrrho]

Straight out of Catch-22:
Or Kafka's The Trial


"You can't go out, you are arrested."

"So it seems," said K. "But what for?" he added.

"We are not authorized to tell you that..."



Our officials, so far as I know them, and I know only the lowest grades among them, never go hunting for crime in the populace, but, as the Law decrees, are drawn toward the guilty and then send out us warders. That is the Law. How could there be a mistake in that?

[CFLarsen]

Not so, even if the accuser thinks so.

Why not? You are not in control of this, the mob is.

[Pyrrho]

Why not? You are not in control of this, the mob is.
What do I care what the mob thinks? They don't control me.

[CFLarsen]

What do I care what the mob thinks? They don't control me.

They control what people think of you. Either way, you are guilty, in their eyes. Simply by acting offended.

[Pyrrho]

They control what people think of you. Either way, you are guilty, in their eyes. Simply by acting offended.
So what? I remember what xouper used to say: "If you try to please everyone, someone won't like it." Or, as is said in a certain self-help group, "What other people think of me is none of my business," the point being that I can't spend my life fretting about what's going on in the head of some other person. I ain't here to win a popularity contest, if you get my drift.

That said, actions have consequences. If I trot out a stream of offensive babble, I shouldn't act all surprised and nonplussed and, dare I say it, offended, if other people get mad at me for it.

[CFLarsen]

So what? I remember what xouper used to say: "If you try to please everyone, someone won't like it." Or, as is said in a certain self-help group, "What other people think of me is none of my business," the point being that I can't spend my life fretting about what's going on in the head of some other person. I ain't here to win a popularity contest, if you get my drift.

That said, actions have consequences. If I trot out a stream of offensive babble, I shouldn't act all surprised and nonplussed and, dare I say it, offended, if other people get mad at me for it.

If a majority of people - or even a big enough group with enough influence - thinks you are guilty, then you have a problem.

If you ignore it, you have an even bigger problem.

[T'ai Chi]

Why would one have a problem over others' misunderstandings? Please explain.

[CFLarsen]

Why would one have a problem over others' misunderstandings? Please explain.

You credibility will be hurt, if people think you were being deliberately offensive (if you apologize). It will also be hurt if you don't apologize (in which case, you're an oaf).

[Pyrrho]

If a majority of people - or even a big enough group with enough influence - thinks you are guilty, then you have a problem.

If you ignore it, you have an even bigger problem.
Agreed.

Also...are we still talking about the giving or taking of offense?

As for apologies...I only apologize when I've been genuinely wrong. Gratuitous apologies can be as offensive as the original offense.

Anyway...I'm pretty good at detecting Catch-22 situations and avoid them like the plague.

[Pyrrho]

You credibility will be hurt, if people think you were being deliberately offensive (if you apologize). It will also be hurt if you don't apologize (in which case, you're an oaf).
Only if the offended party makes an effort to ruin my credibility. Which is why, in the words of Mike Wallace, "I live a life that is beyond reproach." :D

We've seen it before--an outraged party raises a huge stink over minor issues and systematically discredits the other party while demanding action. When the outrage is out of proportion to the alleged offense, it tends to discredit the outraged instead of the alleged offender. People who throw tantrums lose face.

[CFLarsen]

Also...are we still talking about the giving or taking of offense?

We are talking about offense being used as a weapon. Well...I am. :)

Only if the offended party makes an effort to ruin my credibility. Which is why, in the words of Mike Wallace, "I live a life that is beyond reproach." :D

Sounds dull...

We've seen it before--an outraged party raises a huge stink over minor issues and systematically discredits the other party while demanding action. When the outrage is out of proportion to the alleged offense, it tends to discredit the outraged instead of the alleged offender. People who throw tantrums lose face.

The stink doesn't even need to be a huge one. Even small (claimed) offenses help erode the credibility of someone. They add up, to become a huge stinker.

It doesn't even have to be someone claiming to be offended himself. People are also offended (and demand apologies) on behalf of other people.