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

[juli]

Fuck yes.

[tim]

OH NO, YOU USED A SWEAR, AND I'M GOING TO PRETEND I'M NOT AN ADULT PARTICIPATING IN AN ADULT DISCUSSION AND BE FAKE-PRISSY AS A DISTRACTION FROM ADDRESSING YOUR POINT

[juli]

Strong idiocy requires strong characterization.

[tim]

But, but, I've had the privilege of never having had to experience an emotion about anything in my entire life, and doesn't that confer on me the privilege of suggesting that having emotions makes one less rational and morally virtuous? MOMMYYYYYY

[juli]

"Motherfuck a window, Radio Raheem is dead."

[kake]

Also, what is that "if" about? If you're sorry you offended me, apologise for that. If you don't believe you really offended me, then say so.

[tim]

I should watch that.

[tim]

You see, you might be lying about whether I offended you. I can't be sure. Hence the "if". Or maybe you're just not very aware of your own feelings, of which I of course have a better understanding (despite being a stranger on the Internet).

[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.

[juli]

I found it useful since I've been exposed to a lot of bullshit arguments about it since I last watched it, and in attempting to deconstruct my reactions to those, I came away from it with what I found a much more valuable message than the one that the culture I was immersed in when it was a relevant and talked-about film (which, even in its negation, was wrong.)

Also, it's really remarkable how much DTRT feels like a play rather than a film. I'm not sure if I can convey that well, but something about the limited, relatively static environments and some of the acting style really reminds me of a very good play in a way that makes it a really enjoyable to watch in a sort of literary/intellectual way, instead of watching for enjoyment. (Though certainly some of the comic tropes are enjoyable and remind me of people who don't seem to have counterparts on the west coast, and watching how some of them fit into Lee's narrative made me examine some of my experiences with inner-city black culture as a teenager which were incomplete and which I could not make sense of at the time. [Likewise for watching The Wire a few months back, I suppose.])

[hitchhiker]

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

[tim]

It's really funny how much cultural bullshit we all swallow and probably never know about until someone calls us on it. I remember all the furor over GANGSTA RAP when I was a teenager. I more or less believed what I read in the papers and it never occurred to me that, say, singing about the lives of outlaws could be valid social commentary and not some sort of "go out and kill!" dog-whistle. And nothing *ever* really forced me to challenge that residual belief until the past couple years.

Which, going back to the original point, is why people calling you on your shit is valuable and ought not to be dismissed as merely a matter of having triggered some sort of free-floating distress of theirs (how'd that happen?)

[tim]

Why?

[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"

[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]

A little further from the original point: how insulting and brainwashed is it that people implied that black audiences would watch DTRT and riot? Because, you know, black people (1) can't tell fiction from reality (2) are prone to rioting / are easily-incited (3) have only fictional things worth rioting about (4) or perhaps just ape (get it!) whatever they see in TV/movies unthinkingly. Fuck, man. That's some deep bullshit. I guess you can turn it around and say more charitably that white people just can't handle the idea that black people might have comparable real troubles, and wish that they were irrational and vain and whatever because that would make them feel less bad? Maybe? I guess? Kind of?

Indeed, dismissing anything as mere (mere!) outrage or offense or ... frames the discussion so far away from the actions of the original person and to the response of the person with the (perhaps valid, but its validity is irrelevant) complaint. "It's not me, it's you!" Fuck.

[juli]

Citation needed.

[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]

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.

[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]

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?

[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.