Public service announcement

[tim]

Dear world:

Please stop using the phrase "I'm sorry if I offended you."

If I'm calling you on your bullshit, your error wasn't to hurt my feelings. If I were actually hurt, I probably wouldn't have the energy to confront you about it, unless you were someone I knew well.

Rather, your error was to say something that made you look like an ignorant clown.

So why are you apologizing to me for that?

Love,
tim

---

Another way of saying it (in re discussion in comments here) is that there is something to learn from any criticism. If "Alice" thinks something you said makes you seem like an ignorant clown, then there's probably something in either what you said, or how you said it, or both, that's worth examining. Unless, that is, you have no respect for "Alice" whatsoever. If "I'm sorry if I offended you" connotes "I have no respect for you whatsoever", is it really a polite thing to say?

Comments

[hitchhiker]

this i can agree with. the parent not so much - what it means, specifically, is "you don't have any particular authority (in either the scientific or the mundane sense of the word) to call me on what i said; nonetheless, if it caused you personal distress, i am sorry for that"

[tim]

That's not how I usually see it used, and even if that's how it's being used, I don't really see how a stranger has any business being concerned about my personal emotional state.

[hitchhiker]

well, if you've gone through the trouble to upbraid him, some assumption of offense is a fairly natural reaction.

[tim]

Why?

[hitchhiker]

because people are by and large nonconfrontational unless they have some sort of stake in the discussion. a personal emotional involvement is the commonest sort of stake.

[juli]

Citation needed.

[hitchhiker]

no citation, just personal observations on the steady state societies settle into. some variant of "mind your own business" or "don't get involved" is ingrained in everyone i know, to a greater or lesser extent; it takes *something* to counteract it.

[juli]

Are you qualified to make that observation? Which societies? For all their conflict-avoidance, the Swiss have rebelled against many long-standing aspects of their society over the last hundred years, and are quite glad to be confrontational with people who want to be Swiss (seriously, they're not so keen on immigrants.) If you're talking about closed systems, I have some MC Hawking for you: the Earth's not a closed system, it's powered by the sun, so fuck the damn creationists.

[hitchhiker]

just my i-am-not-an-anthropologist crystallised views from having lived. all i'm saying is that there's an "activation barrier" for getting in someone's face, and that the other person is likely to project his own motivations on you when you scale that barrier.

[tim]

Doesn't that just return to my original point, which is the false elevation of the perspectives of people who lack a personal stake in the situation being discussed?

[hitchhiker]

yes. that's what i'm getting at. it may be false, but it's inductive rather than out of thin air.

[hitchhiker]

to be a bit clearer, this is the internal dialogue i envision:

them: "[whatever]"
you: "omg fail"
them: okay, he's just been rude about something i said
them: but it's none of his business
them: and who's to say which of us is right anyway? certainly not him
them: but wait - maybe he, personally, was offended by what i said
them: that would explain it
them: *nods sagely*
them: okay, even if he doesn't have a point, why hurt his feelings?
them: "i'm sorry if i offended you"

[tim]

This is the dialogue I have in mind:

them: "I don't see how that's racist [or some such statement]"
me: "Actually, as a non-member of the group affected by situation X, you don't have equal moral authority to comment on situation X as a member of the group does."
them: [oh, no, I might be wrong]
them: [but nah, that's impossible, I'm infallible and so the only possible explanation for this dialogue is that he's some sort of over-emotional person]
them: [so I'll look like I'm taking the moral high ground while pretending to be concerned about his feelings and simultaneously dodging consideration of his moral claim]
them: "I'm sorry if I offended you"

[juli]

I dunno, why was them saying whatever to you or where you might read it if they're all "who's to say?" about it? Don't express an opinion or a thought if you don't actually have one. Engage people who engage you about things you have done or said and don't worry about their fucking motivations, or just shut up and ignore them.

[hitchhiker]

"i'm sorry i offended you" *is* an engagement. it is also a commensurate level of engagement to the other person turning a general argument into a direct criticism. "just shut up and ignore them" again assumes some sort of moral low ground where you have ceded your opinion that you are correct, and have to engage them from the position that they are right, or not at all.

[juli]

No, it isn't. "I'm sorry [if] I offended you" is dismissive of their concerns, full stop.

[hitchhiker]

it is. it's replying to [perceived] rudeness with [nonconfrontational] dismissiveness. it's saying "i really don't care what you have to say about *my* opinions, except insofar as they have directly affected *your* life. if they *have*, i am sorry for any offense it caused you (and will note that it is a sensitive topic in any future dealings we might have)".

[tim]

Who said anything about rudeness?

[tim]

Er, no. It's "I'm sorry that I offended you" that turns a general argument into a criticism of the other person's emotional responses to things.

Ignoring a comment reveals nothing about yourself or your thoughts or emotions and thus is often the right course of action. If you're prepared to defend what you have to say, and interested in defending what you have to say, then talk about it, rather than applying a defensive "sorry I offended you". If you're not prepared to defend what you have to say, don't say anything. I'm not sure why people have a hard time with this (other than confusion between moral virtue and omniscience).

[hitchhiker]

> It's "I'm sorry that I offended you" that turns a general argument into a criticism of the other person's emotional responses to things.

surely not - i don't see getting "i'm sorry i offended you" as a reply unless i have introduced the "you" element into the conversation.

> Ignoring a comment reveals nothing about yourself or your thoughts or emotions and thus is often the right course of action.

i'm not talking about right and wrong; i'm talking about the psychology of the individual.

> If you're not prepared to defend what you have to say, don't say anything. I'm not sure why people have a hard time with this (other than confusion between moral virtue and omniscience).

simply because it's not the social convention they follow. theirs would be nearer "okay, if he says something that stupid, assume he's an ass and move on".

[tim]

surely not - i don't see getting "i'm sorry i offended you" as a reply unless i have introduced the "you" element into the conversation.

I've gotten it without having introduced the "you".

i'm not talking about right and wrong; i'm talking about the psychology of the individual.

Huh? Substitute "psychologically easiest course of action" for "right course of action" if you prefer.

simply because it's not the social convention they follow. theirs would be nearer "okay, if he says something that stupid, assume he's an ass and move on".

Assuming someone's an ass and moving on would seem to imply unasking the question by ignoring the comment, rather than going out of one's way to remind everyone present that one is morally superior by virtue of one's emotional detachment from the situation.

[tim]

By the way, the appropriate reaction to a criticism that you don't think is well-founded is to ignore it. At best, a reply of "I'm sorry if I offended you" projects insincerity.

[hitchhiker]

why is that the appropriate reaction? the person criticising you has defined the parameters of the engagement, making a broadcast statement into a personal conversation. some sort of response follows pretty inevitably - again, social conventions.

[tim]

some sort of response follows pretty inevitably - again, social conventions.

Why? Does every comment require a reply?

If one feels the need to reply, one could always quote Henry Kissinger's "Reasonable men [sic] may differ", which at least puts oneself and one's adversary on equal footing, rather than setting oneself up as the calm and reasonable one who is being magnanimous enough to apologize for whatever pain they ACCIDENTALLY caused to the unstable loony they're talking to.

[juli]

+1 for different strokes for different folks. (Everyone loves a reacharound.)