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]

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?

[hitchhiker]

you did. it's "rude" to directly criticise someone for a broadcast statement. taking your example, "i think that's racist because..." is keeping the conversation on the same level; "you don't have as much right to decide what's racist as..." is shifting the terms of engagement in a manner that could be perceived as rude.

[tim]

People could perceive anything as rude, which bullshit I will not co-sign.

Some things are right and wrong and ought not to be clothed in therapy-speak "I" statements. Focusing on perceived "rudeness" rather than rightness is ultimately self-sabotaging as it deprives oneself of opportunities to learn; as Miss Manners said, polite people don't point it out when someone else uses the wrong fork.

[hitchhiker]

hm - if you're referring to my "i think that's racist because..." when you say "therapy-speak 'i' statements" ignore that; it was an inadvertent red herring. substitute the plainer "no, that's racist because...". but we have indeed come to the nub of it - "if you don't think you have anything to learn from the other person, what is the correct response?" self-sabotaging, perhaps, but self-consistent withal.

[tim]

If "I'm sorry I offended you" is a genuine attempt to de-escalate the situation, it's surely a misguided one, in the same way that telling people to "calm down" has the opposite effect. If the other person is genuinely offended, how often does an apology unaccompanied by evidence of understanding why the offense took place help? And if the other person is not offended, aren't you suggesting to them the possibility of becoming offended?

And if it's not a genuine attempt to de-escalate the situation, it's disingenuous and (attempts to play devil's advocate aside) I can't see a defense for that kind of mendacity.

[hitchhiker]

it comes down to codified conventions again. what it's saying is "okay, look, if you've been personally hurt, i'm sorry about that; if you haven't, i'm really not interested in discussing the matter further with you".

also, it's *entirely* possible for someone to be offended by a statement i make when i am actually in the right. what's the correct response in this case? from where i stand, i understand perfectly well where the offense took place, and it's from the other person clinging to a view that is *wrong*. but the person is nonetheless offended. i didn't mean to offend him, but i will not incorporate his folly into my world view. what now?

[tim]

I'm arguing that it's incorrect to apply a convention that (at best) comes from interactions with friends to people with whom one is not intimate and thus people whose feelings are not your concern.

also, it's *entirely* possible for someone to be offended by a statement i make when i am actually in the right. what's the correct response in this case?

To not care. It's their problem.

[juli]

Where are these conventions codified? Hopefully not in your observations. Because that does not a codified convention make.

[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.

[hitchhiker]

> 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.

no, you're missing my point. projecting his worldview on you, the right thing for *you* to do would have been to assume he is an ass and move on. the fact that you have chosen to directly criticise him has elevated this from a discussion into a confrontation. to ignore you now would be backing down; it is imperative that he give *some* sort of response. but what response? he can't address your criticism, because that would be giving it an unwarranted validity (remember, you have no business criticising him in the first place). he can't just say "who died and made you god?" because those are fighting words, and he isn't really looking for a fight. he thinks *you* are, though, and therefore has to de-escalate without actually letting you win (both from a personal moral satisfaction pov, and being mindful of the audience). he can't call you on overstepping your bounds or being rude, because that's again picking a fight, and it might make *him* look like the belligerent one to the audience. all that's left are "well, let's agree to disagree" and "i'm sorry you were offended". take your pick; from where i stand, both are equally annoying.

[tim]

Er, there's nothing inconsistent about your account of the hypothetical person's psychological state, but I'm arguing that it's wrong and fucked-up to be in that psychological state (that is, the state in which any criticism of ideas is taken as a personal attack).

[hitchhiker]

do you really see "you don't have as much right to judge this matter" as a pure criticism of ideas? if you do, i speculate that you're in the minority here.

[tim]

Well, yes. It's criticizing the idea (implicitly put forth by "them" in my example) that members of a marginalized group and members of a non-marginalized group have equivalent moral standing to evaluate a situation affecting the marginalized group.

[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.)