Apologies - and what they're there for.

[andrewducker]

Interesting discussion over here. Cory Doctorow posted something. He doesn't believe it was a wrong action. He believes the law is likely to be on his side in the matter. However, doing it has turned out to be hurtful towards someone whose opinion he cares about. So he's removed the posting, and apologised. Or possibly "apologised". Insofar, as he's not saying he's done anything _wrong_ - just something that someone he likes didn't like.

I find myself in that situation occasionally - wanting to sort out a situation where I believe I was acting in a morally reasonable way, but have hurt the feelings of a friend. And "apology" indicates to me an agreement that an action was wrong, and so it feels like the wrong thing to say. In addition, some people feel that saying "I stand by my action in general, but apologise for the distress it caused." isn't really any use to anyone.

Part of me wants to say "Fuck it! I did the right thing, if other people feel that strongly about my behaviour they should find friends who all think the same as them!", but another part says "I don't actually want to alienate my friends, so I should moderate my behaviour around them." Clearly, the answer is somewhere between - and it's finding this middle ground and living within it that causes me the most stress when dealing with my friends.

Thoughts? Suggestions?

Comments

[sterlingspider.livejournal.com]

I would rather receive an apology like that then either end of the action/inaction spectrum. Who wants to be in a situation where someone was either (insincerely) placating them or stepping on them in some way (even if it is "only" emotionally)?

Admittedly I have NO other context for this, but liviapenn seemed to be having an awfully kneejerk negative reaction to the neutral tone of the "apology". I think if you're going to publicly snark someone on the basis of politeness the only polite thing to do is to actually ask what their intentions were before assuming a negative skew.

This is especiallyimportant when you're talking about the internet; it is by now very well known that the lack of physical and verbal context of online communication makes things come out much harsher then spoken communication. There's very little excuse at this point for someone who is so interested in politeness to assume such a negative tone without getting more information first.

While I admit it's mildly hypocritical to address her (similarly verbal context free) communication as such, I think she made enough explanation of her thoughts on the matter that I have a pretty firm grasp on her feelings.

[j-larson.livejournal.com]

Presumably most of these cases don't happen when you are convinced you are wholly in the right. Instead they are over in middle ground where you agree the issue of right and wrong is at least arguable. And if someone who matters to you really is upset, and you are not way over in the free and clear, it's really not the time to try to score debating points over where the moral boundary lies. It's time to mend the tear.

To do so, you don't necessarily need to admit outright error; something like "thoughtlessness" is probably about right. Something like this: "Bob, I can see why you are angry with me, and I'm really sorry. It was thoughtless of me to do what I did. At a minimum, I should have asked first."

[sterlingspider.livejournal.com]

Note: I don't necessarily think she was wrong to interpret it that way, but to assume it without fact checking is fairly impolite, (as is calling someone out on it in a public forum, but I'm being hypocritical about that too).

[sterlingspider.livejournal.com]

+1

"Thoughtlessness" is pretty much the perfect word.

[chuma.livejournal.com]

Your final paragraph sounds very familiar and I would say that it is correct, personally. There is only so much middle ground you can cover before the other person has to be willing to make effort too. If the other person is demanding a full unequivical apology in a circumstance where you didn't intend to upset them, and unwilling to see this fact, then really you can either lie to them and say sorry when you don't mean it, or walk away.

This recently happened when I made a joke to someone, which I knew was tongue in cheek, but didn't think was crossing any lines that hadn't been approached before... I was wrong. I felt really shitty that I had upset them and conveyed repeatedly I was sorry and didn't mean to. Thankfully they knew this and it was quelled with a "ok, but please don't say that again" and within 30 minutes all was well again.

I guess the point is, if you care enough about oneanother as friends or whatever, you find a way through it.

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

There is no right or wrong about how people feel about emotions, as opposed to facts.
- acknowledging that gets you some way towards realising that 95% of the cases you're talking about, you're defending being "right" (or compromising, ok) when rightness just isn't an applicable notion.

Alternately, you have a bunch of really freaky friends :-P

btw "saying "I stand by my action in general, but apologise for the distress it caused." dressed up as some kind of apology (as opposed to statement of position)

entitles the recipient to punch you :-) (with extra air miles)

[drjon.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. I shall have to think about it.

[moniqueleigh]

saying "I stand by my action in general, but apologise for the distress it caused." dressed up as some kind of apology (as opposed to statement of position)

entitles the recipient to punch you :-) (with extra air miles)

I disagree. To me, it's both statement of position "I stand by my action in general" and apology "I'm sorry for the distress my action caused you." I would (and have) gladly accept such a statement/apology.

I've also made a few of same before, especially in my position as phone-based customer service rep: "I'm sorry our guidelines have upset you, but we at The Company stand by our procedures."

[likeneontubing.livejournal.com]

i have also used this hehe

[autopope.livejournal.com]

I think the problem here is that both parties think they're in the right, but both of them made mistakes.

Cory's mistake: he forgot that while fair use doctrine allows the use of reasonable extracts, there are two definitions -- the usual one is a single paragraph, but there's a rider that it's always less than ten percent of the work in question. Cory extracted a paragraph but forgot that he was quoting a damn sight more than 10% of the work in question.

Meanwhile, U.K.le G's response seems to have been to fly off the handle in a most unedifying way. As I understand it (and I wasn't keeping a close eye on things -- I was on a signing tour and didn't have a lot of time for web surfing) she was primed for it by Andrew Burt and Jerry Pournelle. Jerry is a troll when it comes to copyright issues, and has a bee in his bonnet about the Great Satan Doctorow, and I trust Andrew about as far as I can throw him. Indeed, her initial public response might well have been a reaction to a "let's you and him fight" set-up by third parties.

So she had legitimate reasons to complain to Cory, but she went way too far (possibly with the encouragement of certain persons of ill-will).

Upshot: nobody wins.

(NB: I speak as a friend of Cory.)

[andrewducker]

Met Cory a couple of times (Lilian had him up to give a talk and we went out for dinner) and he seems nice - full of good intentions, albeit a bit obsessed with copyright :->

And I think you're completely right here - they are both right, and neither of them thought as clearly as they should have done.

Unclear thinking isn't a crime though - and it would be nice if people would remember this and not condemn each other unpleasantly for them. I get enough of that with my friends, without authors doing it publicly too :->

[meaningrequired.livejournal.com]

I have no idea what any of this is about (and I have to leave the house soon) so maybe what I'm about to say has no bearing on anything whatsoever.

Your tale is told from the very ending of the story, when you go "oops, I did this, but I think it was right, I'm sorry if it hurt you"

Sometimes, if you are about to do something, that may upset someone (I'm assuming it has to be some sort of an action) you could talk to the potentially upset person, explain your reasons and ask them if its ok. This makes the person feel important. I think part of the problem of apologizing after implies that you didn't care enough to consider the person in the first place.

It also might be a way to check that your behavior is actually morally acceptable to everyone around you. I love reading the Ferret, I think one of his posts a while ago was if someone challenges you, it doesn't mean you should change, it just means you should *check*.

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

That's understandable (though unbelievabl;y annoying) from a comapny , but it is NOT an apology from a person.
Actualy there is some very good stuff on really saying you're sorry in the new Mark haddon novel.

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

I think you've hit something very important there.

So many apologies are basically, "I'm sorry you got hurt but either (a) i didn't care enough to think ahead or (b) hell I'd do it again and apologise again - so I care more about my chosen course of action than your feelings"

Both of these may be choices you want to make, on due review, but again, neither of them are *apologies* in any real sense (or their currency is very depreciated), so don't be suprised if the hurt person doesnt take them as such.

Thinking/checking first rather than bashing on and apologising half heartedly after is so much better a course of action.

An apology means "I'm sorry, I didn't think and I wouldn't do it again." This clarifies things for me at least :)

[andrewducker]

it is NOT an apology from a person.
I agree. Which is why I said:

And "apology" indicates to me an agreement that an action was wrong, and so it feels like the wrong thing to say.

What I was looking for was a word which meant "We disagree over whether the wrong thing was done, but I'm sorry that it upset you."

[andrewducker]

Yup. I largely agree there. Checking ahead is a good idea if you have any idea that your action might cause distress.

My problem being numerous occasions where I had no idea that me wearing a red t-shirt would trigger flashbacks to the time the person was terrorised by a re-wearing bully. And so I want to apologise for their upsetness, but not for wearing red, and don't really feel that it was reasonable for me to have anticipated their emotional reaction.

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

I agree with this: someone did soemthing similar to me once and I found out months later through an acquaintance. I didn't mind that my work had been used, but I did mind that someone -- whom I did not know -- had put it up without at least trying to ask me first. It's not simply a matter of legalities, it's also one of courtesy.

[ripperlyn.livejournal.com]

I don't like to moderate my behaviour around my friends; I find this leaves me open to feeling insecure and like my 'real self' isn't good enough for them. I therefore try to pick people, as friends, who are OK with my basic personality and moral beliefs.

When I get faced with a situation where I feel I'm in the right, but my being in the right causes someone I care about to be in pain, my response is generally that it wasn't my intention to cause them upset or pain. If I don't feel that my action is inappropriate, though, I'm not going to offer up an empty apology.

I wouldn't want to hurt my friends for anything in the world, but I can't control their responses to actions I feel are reasonable, so for me that's the 'happy' medium. Givng up that attempt to control the reactions of others is, I think the key.

Does that make sense or am I just rabbiting on incoherently?

[ripperlyn.livejournal.com]

Maybe the question is whether you can be sorry for something if you'd do it the same way the next time. 'I'm sorry I hurt you' has the implication that you would behave in a way that wouldn't hurt that person if the situation arose again. And if you know you hurt someone but WOULD do the same thing again, maybe that is a bigger issue that would negate being able to apologise in the first place.

[ripperlyn.livejournal.com]

See, to me, that reaction on that person's part was completely unreasonable. They could have had their reaction and explained, and then accepted your apology for hurting them, and if you saw them again you could make the effort not to wear red out of consideration for their feelings, but at the end of the day unless we're talking about a significant life partner I don't think you can expect everyone in the world to not wear a COLOUR around you. Sheesh.

[darkoshi]

This is pretty much what other people have already said.

There's a difference between telling someone or implying that if you had known that your actions would upset them, you wouldn't have done it, versus saying that you are sorry for upsetting them, but that you still would do the same thing all over again even knowing that it upsets them.

In the first case, it shows that you care about their feelings, and in the second, it shows that you care more about being right, or having things your way, than their feelings.

If it is someone that you are not close to, or not emotionally involved with, then the 2nd scenario is reasonable. But if you are emotionally involved with them, or good friends, then you want them to know that you really do care about their feelings.

In some cases, it may be that you know that a particular action will upset someone you are close to, but you feel you have to do it anyway.. In that case, you could at least discuss it with the other person beforehand, and ask if there is any way you can make it less distressing for them. That shows that you still care.

Have you read the book "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus"? I think you might find it interesting. I think parts of it are corny, and it is very hetero-centric, but it still seems to have good points about how many people feel about things and why they act how they do.

[andrewducker]

Read it, found bits of it useful.

And yes - discussing it with people is important, provided you know you need to. But there are limits to how much I'm willing to modify the behaviour that makes me happy, in order to make other people happy.

[major-clanger.livejournal.com]

Reading Cory's reply, it seems he has looked at the relevant US statute and is putting forward his interpretation of it. However, the US is a Common Law jurisdiction, which means that you have to look at how statutes have been interpreted by courts. lederhosen has elsewhere pointed to a handy summary of the case law produced by Stanford; it's a much more involved issue than just pointing at USC.17 and saying "well I think it means this."

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

actually having finally read the actual source of this post Cory sounds to me both to be clearly actually sorry (in the sense that he really wouldn't have done it if he'd known it would upset leGuin and wouldn't do it again) and be trying to make amends.

It's a very different story from the kind of areas I was talking about.