I'm probably going to regret this, but L'Affair Bostrom has intrigued me. Here's the background.
Nick Bostrom is a professor of philosophy at Oxford University who did something unfortunate 26 years ago: he engaged in an online conversation with a bunch of other 23-year-olds on an email listserv. The topic was communication styles, and Bostrom averred that he liked blunt talk. Unfortunately, the example he came up with was . . .
Blacks are more stupid than whites
. . . as an alternative to:
On average, Black people score lower on standardized IQ tests than white people.
In the email, he followed this up with a complaint that the blunt version of the statement strikes most people as no more than:
I hate those bloody n-----s!!!!
So far there's no controversy. Everyone, including Bostrom, agrees that this was idiotic, offensive, and repulsive. Bostrom apologized for it within 24 hours of writing it, and there it would have lain for the next 26 years, untouched and unknown, except for one thing: Bostrom apparently caught wind that someone was trawling through the old archives of the listserv looking for offensive stuff to use in "smear campaigns." Instead of waiting for this to happen, he posted a preemptive apology a week ago.
This blew up a corner of the internet because the apology—as usual—was deemed insufficient and insensitive. Here it is:
I completely repudiate this disgusting email from 26 years ago. It does not accurately represent my views, then or now. The invocation of a racial slur was repulsive. I immediately apologized for writing it at the time, within 24 hours; and I apologize again unreservedly today. I recoil when I read it and reject it utterly.
What are my actual views? I do think that provocative communication styles have a place—but not like this! I also think that it is deeply unfair that unequal access to education, nutrients, and basic healthcare leads to inequality in social outcomes, including sometimes disparities in skills and cognitive capacity. This is a huge moral travesty that we should not paper over or downplay. Much of my personal charitable giving over the years has gone to fighting exactly this problem: I’ve given many thousands of pounds to organizations including to the SCI Foundation, GiveDirectly, the Black Health Alliance, the Iodine Global Network, BasicNeeds, and the Christian Blind Mission.
Are there any genetic contributors to differences between groups in cognitive abilities? It is not my area of expertise, and I don’t have any particular interest in the question. I would leave to others, who have more relevant knowledge, to debate whether or not in addition to environmental factors, epigenetic or genetic factors play any role
Peter Wildeford explains why he was offended:
Bostrom’s apology was absolutely idiotically executed and showed a stellar amount of indifference to the harm that his original email and expressed views caused.
But this isn't true. Bostrom's original email caused almost no harm and would have continued to cause no harm except that someone apparently planned to dredge it up and attack Bostrom with it. This is the person who caused harm.
What else? Other commenters have suggested that the apology was "defensive"; that it spent too little time apologizing; that it was tone deaf; that it didn't offer to make amends; and that it showed a lack of empathy toward the people Bostrom is apologizing to. Wildeford himself is upset at Bostrom's "smug and arrogant social ineptitude and flagrant dismissal of this incident."
Matt Yglesias takes a different view: Since Bostrom's original email recommended that offensive views should be dressed up for public consumption, maybe that's all he's doing here. "Under that circumstance, you face an unusually high bar if you want to genuinely persuade people that you have genuinely changed your mind....To my eye the 'apology' totally failed to meet that bar."
I don't really buy any of this. Bostrom has been a highly public and widely published figure for the past 26 years, and I don't know how a bar can be any higher. If he's done nothing in 26 years to suggest he has racist views, either he's not a racist or else he's a liar who could give George Santos a run for his money.
Nor do I really buy all the tonal criticisms. No apology has to be perfect, and the intent of Bostrom's seems fairly clear. We should do our best to give apologies a fair reading, not an obviously hostile one.
But then there's one more weird thing: After the excerpt I cited above, Bostrom abruptly veers into a short discussion of eugenics. Why? Everyone seems to be assuming that it demonstrates a deep well of racial obsession that bubbles up in Bostrom's brain constantly, which he doesn't have the self-control to shut up about. But I don't think that's right. Bostrom is deeply involved in the bioenhancement movement—which some people associate with eugenics—so he probably figured he needed to address it since it was certain to come up. Unfortunately, he puts it this way:
Do I support eugenics? No, not as the term is commonly understood.
This is pretty obviously open to mockery, and he really should have had the smarts to choose different wording. The point he wants to make is that in "contemporary academic bioethics" the word eugenics is sometimes used in the sense that parents should have access to genetic screening and, presumably, the choice to enhance their children if they wish to do so. Bostrom apparently (?) supports this, and wants to make sure that if anyone suggests he's ever written something that "endorses eugenics," this is all he was referring to.
My view is that the real villain of this episode is the person who was planning to attack Bostrom by dredging up this old email (assuming that such a person actually exists). Beyond that, I think that a fair reading of the apology convicts Bostrom, at most, of some awkward writing, but no more.
Finally, there's this: I have thought for some time that the art of apologizing has gone off the rails. In social media land, it's virtually impossible to offer an apology that doesn't attract mountains of criticism. For one reason or another, apologies are never good enough—it's a "non-apology apology"; you can't unring that bell; it showed too little appreciation of the deep harm that was caused; you need deeds, not just words; etc.—and this is so no matter how they're phrased or what they're about.
I'd just as soon not add to this. Let's save the pile-ons for genuinely insincere or tone-deaf apologies.
sweetie honey darling Kevin, apologies are never actually accepted as sufficient by anyone anywhere. a change in behavior and attitude and working to better the community you harmed is required. an apology is just the opening statement. murderers frequently apologize on the stand; we still out them in prison.
in the past, when powerful people got caught and apologized, we all moved on because they were powerful people, and we couldn’t easily punish them, and having got them to apologize was deemed as good as it got.
but now, we have receipts and we can get at them. and in this case, you’ve got a guy who clearly held racist views, might still hold racist views, and is involved with the modern incarnation of the eugenics movement. his apology is insufficient without evidence of true contrition, and there isn’t any.
for me, I don’t actually believe it was only a couple of emails and then he changed his ways; nobody writes “I hate n—s” and just poof! gets better. this just happens to be the only time he was dumb enough to leave a papertrail.
and it’s horrifying that you think the person who found the emails is the problem. makes me wonder what’s in your emails.
That's a very long-winded way to say that you didn't really read what was written.
ha. yeah.
+50
I read every word, tyvm. Kevin is just an idiot.
Well that's a cogent and concise argument.
Or it's just a bullshit ad hominem attack. Let the people decide.
If you think Kevin is and idiot, there is an easy way to fix your problem. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
But if you want to hang around, start using your brain instead of your id. "...for me, I don’t actually believe it was only a couple of emails " Do you have evidence? If not, what you believe is irrelevant as it is disconnected from reality.
I mean seriously. Conservatives are delicate snowflakes. So are progressives. Both of them should cut that shit out.
uh, either i’m blind or he stated his argument quite clearly in his initial post.
fwiw, “both sides bad” isn’t a very persuasive counterargument
So you're admitting you're a liar. Good to know.
Waving away an eloquent explanation was to why a guy is rightfully being pilloried over e-mails sent 26 year ago is a short winded way to say you don't get it.
Start making more money weekly. This is valuable part time work for everyone. The best part ,work from the comfort of your house and get paid from $10k-$20k each week . Start today and have your first cash at the end of this week.
Visit this article for more details.. https://Payathome.pages.dev/
Outrage has lost all meaning. Everyone is outraged about everything. When I see a restrained, factual response from a Republican politician, I'm shocked. And I have some hope that being constantly outraged will lose its value.
You can tell this person is rational and arguing in good faith by their choice of handle. Abolish Federal Income Taxes? And replace the revenue with what, exactly? Or does this person believe we can just cut $2.3T of "waste" from the federal budget? ($2.3T is the sum of all individual income taxes paid in the last reported tax year, 2021.)
As a Blue State Liberal, I'm tired of subsidizing Red State Welfare.I still believe in Social Security, Medicare, etc. I believe in the common defense paid for on a per capita basis per state. All the spending on discretionary items should be for the states to deal with. Want to teach religion in schools. Go right ahead. But without Federal assistance.
Money talks. And there's little chance of trying to reason 35% of the population that are hardened reactionaries.
Unfortunately there is an equal amount of outrage emanating from liberal circles. Outrage feeds endorphins. People LOVE to be outranged about something because it makes them feel morally superior. Social media and what is currently called "news" by our society do nothing but feed this feeling.
I want to say I'm outranged by it as a joke but I'm not. I'm more depressed by it.
I think the thing you're failing to account for in your premise that online apologies are never accepted is the "squeaky wheel" effect that's ever present in online commentary. There are millions of people on twitter and thousands of promininent pundit-types like yglesias. And you're mostly going to see the folks who are angry or outraged commenting, while those who are perfectly satisfied with this or any other apology will simply move on. I know nothing about Bostrom, but based on this post, it sounds like he's pretty stupid about how he talks about race and not so great at apologies either. But it seems like a perfectly fine, if not perfect apology and if I had seen it on twitter I would have thought "huh. ok.", but not written up an aproving response.
I think it’s a pretty poor apology for some really offensive comments. However you are absolutely right that dissatisfied voices tend to be much louder than satisfied ones in all spheres of life not just online.
To be honest, I didn't read the full apology, but the excerpt kevin included in his post (because i don't know who this guy is or really care much about this specific case) so I guess I missed the offensive stuff. And yeah, the dissatisfied are louder in all spheres, but the vast number of people and reach of modern social media make it much worse online. In pre-internet/social media era, if .001% of people are mad about some obscure incident you just never hear about it, but on twitter that tiny subset is amplified immensely.
Doing a public apology on Twitter is basically showing that your "blood is in the water". You showed public "weakness", and that means an army of people on social media can seek clout and self-promotion by dunking on you over it.
That said, I still think it's a good thing to do - as long as you just apologize and then move on.
Yeah, I think grownups know when they see a half-assed "Sorry not sorry" kind of non-apology and when it's clear the person is trying to sincerely make amends, even if it's not perfect. Who is?
I cannot think of one time that an apology has been really accepted. On the surface, maybe, but inside likely smoulders forever, unless you are a forgiving person. I think that is the key.
These days, an apology is akin to admission of total guilt, even if you aren't guilty. It seems like a no win to me.
So, Trump is right? Never apologize?
The apology of then Governor Ralph Northam to Black Virginians over the med school yearbook photo that appeared alongside his entry was accepted but mostly because it was followed up with actions not just words. Northam walked the walk in terms of making a journey from clueless white guy to a more thoughtful person who seemed to really get institutional racism by the end of his term. It's a pity that he could only serve one term but also a pity that he did have COVID and was suffering through longer term symptoms, otherwise he might have kept in politics instead of retiring to go back to a full time job in a medical practice.
He likely dressed in blackface at some point in his life, but that wasn’t him in the picture:
https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2019/02/04/northams-classmate-party-wasnt-photo-n268034
I find it upsetting that so few people know this.
Jeremy Clarkson, of Top Gear fame, is currently enjoying his time in the barrel over a truly gawdawful column he wrote about Meghan Markle recently in the Daily Mail and the Twitterverse's subsequent rejection of his attempt to apologize for it. Now, I don't know anything about this Bostrum guy, but Clarkson's been an entitled, cantankerous ass for quite some time (along with Piers Morgan), so I'm not particularly sympathetic. The guy who comes off like the biggest asshole here is this Wilberford guy. Who the fuck made him king of Who Decides When Apologies Are Sufficient/Sincere Enough?
I did some googling and if I haven't made some erroneous connections, he may be still in mourning as his wife passed in October.
This is the first I'm hearing of this incident, but as presented here, this is a catastrophically bad apology. My pick for the worst bit:
So basically: "I am agnostic on whether Blacks are inherently intellectually inferior." If you're apologizing for blatant racism, you don't want to tell people that you are uncertain as to whether blatant racism is appropriate.
That's how I read it too.
He went from saying originally:
"Blacks are more stupid than whites. I like that sentence and I think it is true."
To (essentially):
I apologize. I was wrong. I said Blacks are more stupid than whites, but I am truly not qualified to say if Blacks are more stupid. Maybe they are, maybe they're not.
That's barely an improvement on the ignorant-and-repulsive scale.
I consider "I was young and dumb" to be a legitimate excuse. Bostrom lacks that defense here.
Yes it's a Trumpian apology - aka "Fine people on both sides!"
An apology is a process executed in the context of a relationship. One addresses oneself to the person(s) harmed, usually knowing who they, or at least some of them, are.
What we do online these days is only the crudest approximation of an apology.
To execute an apology well, one looks the injured party in the eye, states what they've done and says, "I'm sorry". What happens next is a crucial part of the apology process, but it isn't in the hands of the apologizer.
Usually the apologized-to (apologee?) will now vent. They will elaborate on how the harm affected them. They will express some feelings. The role of the apologizer is to not look away, not push back, not deflect, simply maintain contact and repeat, as appropriate, "I'm sorry". This is effective. I have done it person-to-person. It is a process, not a statement. It is not a matter of using the right words, it is a matter of satisfying the injured party.
Ok, so here's the deal I am not the primary injured party here. I should not play the role of "apologized-to". I am capable of making the "use-mention" distinction, as well, so I'm not very bothered by this stuff. Particularly as it's someone I've never heard of, saying something that doesn't seem terrible *to me*, I mean, it seems like clickbait, really.
But there could be true injured parties. And his statement is an invitation for those people to speak up and say more about how it hurt them. These people could well exist, I'm not demeaning them. I'm more vexed with those jumping in to occupy that space when they have no business doing so, and they don't have any, ahem, skin in the game. And many of them appear to be white people.
Personally, I think white people (like me!) need to learn to shut up more, and let black people speak for themselves.
While I'm on board with you, I am not as naive about the process because it is unique in every case. And with the technology of today and the brittleness of manners including long held, righteous grudges, what started as a small case is now slowly becoming a planetary whirlwind feeding a continental brush fire - could anybody ever really recover from that? Could anyone ever be contrite enough? Could anyone ever perform the monumental, proverbial task of Calvary?
There are few solutions. Submit and consent to constant surveillance in the public sphere or complete withdrawal from it to name two.
I don't disagree that it is unique in every case. I'm just trying to put something on the table, and that something is that apologizing to "the public" in general is something that doesn't make any sense. So of course it doesn't work.
Ah that point passed completely above my head. Et je suis d'accord.
Good observation.
My wife Pat was terrific at sales. She could sell anything. She taught me there are two simple rules for success in selling:
(1) Listen first, then talk.
(2) Don't sell past the close.
Apparently this fellow Nick Bostrom did number 1 all right, but he really screwed up number 2. He listened to the words in the wind, telling him that some folks remembered that dumb thing he wrote 26 years ago, and they were all riled up about it even now. And he paid attention to what he heard; he didn't simply ignore it. And then he did what professors of philosophy are apparently incapable of stifling--he went on and on, instead of just stating his point once, clearly, and the shutting up.
Professor Bostrom made a fine apology in one paragraph, total word count of 56. He could have left it at that, and all these criticisms recounted above would have evaporated in the ether. But no, that was not enough, he needed to preach his philosophy to some audience who hadn't the slightest interest in it. And every time he stuck his foot in his mouth one more time, he left another footprint.
For a smart guy, that was REALLY dumb.
So he said the n-word once in 1997? Hard to get past that, I guess.
If I say something which offends or upsets someone I know, I apologize to them. Why would anyone apologize to people they don't know? I don't give a crap what strangers think.
That's the problem with an "online apology". It's like asking the gods for forgiveness. No one is listening.
Eugenics is an old term which until recently meant improving the species by what amounts to deselection, that is deliberately preventing reproduction by supposedly inferior or undesirable individuals. This is what traditional plant and animal breeders do, and is what Darwin referred to as artificial selection. Several new things have arisen that might be referred to as eugenics, including alteration of the genes of gametes or zygotes, and abortion of an embryo which has undesirable genes. The term should maybe be restricted to the original meaning, or at least require an explanation of what is meant. Nobody should be attacking others who use it without knowing what is meant.
Whether you say smart things or dumb things in public, you will probably be attacked by dumb people and people with an agenda. At present this is practically impossible to avoid by self-censorship.
There is no reason why people need to use "eugenics", and since it is associated with morally wrong ideas, it should not used (unless that what you want to express).
New techniques can have other names, and if no existing word is good, invent a new one.
I propose that most feel that the great majority of pixelated apologies are empty and disingenuous, performative behavior. This is probably true. Continuing, I propose that the majority of offense and desire for castigation is disingenuous performance as well.
I further propose that we are witnessing something similar to satanic panic, blood libel, witch trials, McCarthyism, CRT, Qanon, an evolution of a base fear, worry, anxiety, harm taken to a damaging, ludicrous extreme.
Doing the opposite of whatever Yglesias says is usually the right approach.
It's not about Bostrom, or not entirely about Bostrom. There are hundreds of millions of people who hold repulsive racist views without being the tiniest bit of regret or sensitivity to their victims' feelings. Bostrom's critics are in reality railing about these real racists. Bostrom's reputation is just collateral damage to the frustrated cause of racism elimination. They probably believe that Bostrom's is a small price to pay compared to damage done by racism everywhere.
Simple answer: people don't want to accept any online apology, because it robs them of far more satisfying righteous wrath.
There is little or no downside to rejecting an apology; one is unlikely to be criticized for that. There appears to be an asymmetry here; the rejectionists often impute motive to the one apologizing: insincerity, hypocrisy, etc., but third parties are reluctant to doubt the sincerity of the one claiming injury.