Anatoly_Vorobey comments on The Craft And The Community: The Basics: Apologizing - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (191)
My first reaction to this video is that it's pretty crappy. Its main message is to insist on the following sequence as everyone's moral responsibility: once you say something that someone perceives as hurtful, you're morally obliged not to "question their feelings", but to perceive that you screwed up, to feel bad, to apologize, and change your behavior so this doesn't happen again. The video repeatedly insists that your own thoughts about whether what you've done was improper are irrelevant.
Now, it should be completely obvious that this sequence is not going to be used as prescribed by anyone including the author of the video. If you were to approach him and say, "In your video, you identified my position as that of a fartbag, repeatedly, and that was very hurtful to me", he's not going to say, "Oh, thanks for telling me that, I'm sorry I screwed up, I feel really bad and will never do this again". He is, in fact, going to use his own judgement about the appropriateness of his behavior to decide whether or not he should apologize.
Why, then, is there no mention of your own moral judgement in the video, and instead, you're repeatedly encouraged not to question someone's hurt feelings, but to accept them as a proof you did something hurtful, and must feel bad and apologize?
My guess is that this is a shortcut towards setting up a double standard. Once you've gotten people to accept this sequence as their moral responsibility, some varieties of hurt feelings are going to be treated as obviously triggering the sequence, while others will just be ignored. This isn't conscious lying - the author of the video is sincere. He's going to have a blinkered view of what it means to hurt someone's feelings, and he wants you to have that same view, too. If you approach him with a hypothetical scenario in which what he's said or done was true, virtuous, and hurt the feelings of some bad person, he's not going to be able to see a problem with that, and will accuse you of sophistry.
Double standards are incredibly powerful because they allow you to be hypocritical without consciously being aware of the fact. They've replaced direct and conscious lies as the preferred method of being untruthful in arguments.
The video that is recommended at the end as the inspiration for this one provides much of the missing context; it's all about how to correctly apologize after being "called out, which in the context of this video is when you say or do something that upholds the oppression of the marginalized groups of people"; the video teaches you how to apologize and become a proper "ally", etc. So we're fully into the social-justice-warriors terminology here, which is or course very much misaligned with rationality, and the double standard described above is being built primarily with that purpose.
There are some good things about this video. It is true that many people feel that apologizing is a sign of weakness. It is also true that there should be more direct apologies and fewer non-apology "I'm sorry you feel that way" apologies. These good aspects of the video are drowned by the dogmatic, irrational claims of alleged moral responsibility to which most of the video is devoted.
Watching the video was a decent exercise in detecting some typical patterns of bad thinking.
I don't anticipate that. Seems like a perfectly acceptable hypothetical.
Wait, what? How so?
Not sure I understand you correctly. Are you saying that, for instance, if Hank Green were to correctly call someone's words racist, and that person were to complain to Hank Green that this labeling hurt them, Hank Green would thereupon feel bad, apologize, and refrain from using the word "racist" henceforth? I find that ridiculously unlikely.
In a myriad of ways, really. Off the top of my head, and I'll stop at five examples, and will skip "check your privilege", because that's just shooting fish in a barrel:
Status-seeking through Oppression Olympics is endemic.
The concept of "ally" seems to involve wilful submission to others' critical judgements and suspension of your own critical faculties. Witness the burgeoning genre of explanations of what a "good ally" must or must not do, which usually involve "shut up" and other similar admonishments.
Habitual pattern-matching of any opposition. Hence "derailing", the practice of bingo cards, etc. Persistent, almost automatic pattern-matching is not felt to be a problem.
In general it's rare to see a SJW willing to question the basic tenets of their movement. I also don't recall seeing a SJW actively seek out data unfavourable to their convictions, or update on such data.
SJW rhetoric frequently relies on bullying the opponent, with opposition to such pattern-matched to and decried as "tone argument".
I don't think it's possible to be a committed SJW and a committed rationalist. The social norms of the movement are too poisonous to rational thought.
(rationalism is, of course, compatible with a commitment to social justice)
I guess he would. Well, at least if the complaining person was a woman, or black, or disabled, or homosexual, or whatever. He would probably not stop using the word "racist", but he would be more careful to use it in a way that makes obvious that the word applies only to white straight males.
Ok, I was joking here, but here is a thing that really happened on a feminist blog: There was a discussion about trans people. All people were super politically correct, except for one person who repeatedly asserted that trans people are against the nature, because the Spirit of Nature told her so. When other people finally attacked that as cis-ism (or how exactly they call that), the person defended by saying that she was a Native American, and those were her Native American beliefs; and that the people who offended her beliefs should check their privileges and apologize. And... however incredibly that felt to me... they really apologized. I was completely shocked. So yes, this kind of behavior really is possible. It might not make sense to you or me, but it exists.
"Not sure I understand you correctly" Indeed you misunderstood me; I meant that, if one were to confront Hank Green on this double standard, he would acknowledge it and amend his proposal accordingly, because, as far as I've been able from watching his show, he's an honest guy.
Although, if one is feeling strong enough, the alternative you're describing can be practical, because racists and malicious bastards are people too, have loved ones and hopes and aspirations... and vulnerabilities. And hurting their feelings can be counter-productive to getting them to stop being in your way. So, if you can spare the effort and the love, you might as well be sorry that they're hurt, and say so. But that's, like, Messianic, All-Loving Hero grade awesomeness, and I believe it's perfectly fine to not feel or show "sympathy for the devil".
Also, there might well be a huge level of arrogance in forgiving a villain for the hurt they inflicted on people other than you; it's not your place to do that.
What are Oppression Olymptics? What is "check your privilege"?
This said, I've seen some of the patterns you described occur. I don't know if I would call myself an SJW (I mean, what is that, precisely? I've only started hearing the term "social justice" this November, in relation to Kill la Kill of all things (which, by the way, is insanely awesome), but I know I am pretty committed to the promotion and advancement of gender and racial equality.
This is partly because of the obvious and multiple utilitarian advantages on a universal level. It is also because I selfishly want to be able to enjoy poetry, flowers, fashion, be a vegetarian, drive an electric car, and, why not, fuck a dude if I feel like it, among many other things, without getting harassed and belittled and found undesirable for it by men and women alike, without it diminishing my social status and getting in the way of me getting things done.
Now, this said, I've been faced with embarassing situations as an "ally", where my allies were acting like utter jerks; I call them out on it and move on. The trick is not to be afraid of what the jerks think, to propose one's arguments in a fair-minded way and to stand against unfair-minded arguments, in stark opposition to the "arguments as soldiers" attitude. The fair-minded people will probably know you to be true, and you can only hope that your arguments can somehow get through the jerks' think, irrational, vindictive skulls (if they don't dismiss it outright as "demagogia" or "sophistry").
As for pattern-matching, that's a heuristic that seems hard to avoid when you have little previous information on your interlocutor, and you've had experience before dealing with interlocutors who eventually turned out to be unreceptive jerks from the other side; it can be a very frustrating waste of time and effort and love, and I feel some sympathy for the people who overcomensate in unwelcomingness out of fear of this happening again.
People "competing" by claiming they are more oppressed than other people, because of the group they're in.
In its worst form, the position that you're not allowed to have a view on an issue (or that any possible view is invalid) because you are not the oppressed party.
Hah. The cluster I think of as SJW would, I'm pretty sure, say you couldn't possibly be committed to the advancement of gender equality if you have a positive view on Kill la Kill.
I think that's an inadequate rationalization. As a straight white male who assigns low probability to any of those changing, there is very little selfish benefit in joining the cause - and certainly a social cost to doing so.
True enough. But some movements seem to have a high enough concentration of jerks (in your terms) that it's not worth engaging with them. I support at least some kinds of social justice, but I don't think engaging with a social justice movement would be productive.
I think the big problem is that it's unacceptable to apply the scientific method. When we find out that one group performs differently on an IQ test (say) from another, even considering the possibility that maybe one group is more intelligent than another is seen as unacceptable; we're expected to start from the axiom that all people are equal, and therefore conclude that the test is biased.
Heck, it's got to the point that many empirical facts are unacceptable. As much as we might wish it were otherwise, race predicts criminality even when we control for every other factor we can think of - but you can't say that openly. (I'm using race as an easy example, but there are similarly unsayable things on sex, sexuality and so forth)
Another bad form (I'm not going to claim it's worse) is that your privilege means you're not allowed to have any opinion other than the social justice consensus.
There's a much saner form that's worth noting, when it is shorthand for "You overlap through at least one of the following categories:heterosexual, male, white, high socioeconomic bracket, and so you are less likely to have personal experience of the sort of problem that is going on here and might not notice when it occurs." This is essentially an issue of an illusion of transparency, in that often members of specific groups have issues that they are more aware of, and the amount of share experience leads to problems of inferential distance.
Essential agreement that the other two meanings are deeply counter-rational. Unfortunately, exactly what someone means by it isn't always clear.
You're right about the ignorance part of privilege-- and contrary to SJW, it's quite possible for people in the less privileged categories to be ignorant about at least some of the problems of people in the more privileged categories.
I'd love to find a way to disentangle the ignorance part of the idea of privilege from the power grab, but I haven't figured out how to do it.
My general tactic has been when people use the term to say more or less the version like what you quoted is "problematic" and then explain more or less the ok meaning. Most of the time if you do so, people will be more careful at least for the remainder of the conversation.
On the other hand, at least once when I did so, I was informed that what I was attempting to do was "mansplaining" and "coming from a position of privilege to control what it means to have privilege" and I more or less threw up my hands. I don't know if the individual in question was hopelessly mindkilled or not, but it exceeded my patience level.
I think that "privilege" (in its more reasonable forms) basically refers to a special case of the Typical Mind Fallacy, one where people are prone to dismissing or understating the problems of one group because they don't personally experience them in the same way. For a relatively neutral example, there's this bit in Yvain's post:
I would say that these are pretty much perfect examples of privilege: situations in which the perfectly reasonable problems of one party are completely invisible to the other, to the point that the other cannot even see what the problem is and thinks that the other person is just complaining about nothing.
Similarly, Eliezer has explicitly used the term "metabolic privilege" in pretty much this sense:
So "privilege" is a useful concept, one which has actually already seen use in the LW community. In this context, "check your privilege" is a call to re-evaluate one's assumptions and to take into account the factors which make the situation genuinely problematic for others but a non-problem for you.
Even the "privilege means you're not allowed to have any opinion other than the social justice consensus" sense can be a somewhat reasonable one - there are plausibly positions where people frequently and commonly become guilty of the Typical Mind Fallacy, and where a consensus of the people who've given the issue some thought agrees on this, and people who disagree are likely to just be flat-out wrong. (You could say that it's the SJW version of "read the Sequences".)
A classic SJW example of privilege that I think is justified is the case of sexual harassment of women, where men frequently react to cases of harassment with variations of "I don't see the problem here, if someone did that to me I'd just be flattered". In that case, the fallacy involves an inability to take into account the fact that a behavior that one might consider flattering if it only happened rarely will become unbearable if repeated sufficiently often (obligatory link), and also that men being stronger women creates a sense of accompanying danger that wouldn't be present in the case of women harassing men.
I thought Of Dogs and Lizards was also a nice illustration of these concepts:
That definition is incomplete without having power mentioned in it.
For example, it's culturally difficult for "straight cisgendered male Americans" to show weakness. It's not a problem for women. Take the stereotypical situation when a couple is lost and the man refuses to ask for directions. The woman is annoyed at him. Can he tell her "check your privilege"?
I strongly disagree. It cannot be.
Depends on who you ask. I would say yes, some would say no.
Right, a literal "never allowed to have" cannot be. What I meant to say was that positions that might easily seem like "you are never allowed to have this opinion" might actually be positions of "this position is so likely to be wrong as to not be worth wasting our time with", which can sometimes (though definitely not always) be reasonable.
Are you simply going to say you disagree with Kaj here on this last part or actually respond to their comment, especially say the end of the sentence you cut off where Kaj said:
An interesting set. So let's see who doesn't overlap at least one category -- it got to be a lesbian (or at least bi) poor non-white woman.
So everybody who is not a lesbian poor non-white woman (which I would estimate to be 98-99% of the population) is vulnerable to the cry of Check Your Privilege! Interesting...
Well, in the sane version this isn't about vulnerability or conversation point scoring/status but actually trying to make an observation.
And in the sane contexts, most of them aren't going to be relevant. If for example, one discussing say voting rights issues, I don't think (sane) people are going to argue that sexual orientation matters, even as race and income might.
Although, if you do want to focus on how narrow it can get, I've also seem to the term in the context of people who are Christian not realizing how uncomfortable people from other religious backgrounds can easily be in parts of the US, and especially how that applies to atheists. But again, I don't think the argument would be made that all the issues are relevant at the same time.
So, maybe, make it? There is, of course, the trivial point that for any issue there are people who had personal experience with it and people who had not, but "check your privilege" is very much not about personal experiences but about treating people solely as members of a certain class.
There is a reasonable way to put what you're trying to say -- it would go along the lines of "You are making assumptions X, Y, and Z and they don't work in this situation because of A, B, and C and so what you expect to happen doesn't". But "check your privilege" is not that -- it's a shorthand for "sit down, shut up, and feel guilty".
How about in its best form?
That when I have advantages you don't, I am less likely to notice the problems in our shared environment that my advantages compensate for than you are, and therefore when you discuss a problem in our shared environment that I don't experience, I ought not treat my own experience as definitive on the matter.
EDIT: When used in the second person imperative specifically, as here, it carries the additional implication that the person to whom it is addressed is violating that normative rule.
For real? That surprises me. Do you have a link to the relevant empirical research?
Saw it in a number of threads here but I didn't keep the links, sorry.
I often see this cited but I've never gone through and checked the validity myself.
If you take the blogging equivalent of a wiki-walk through the HBD-sphere you'll come across other data.
I didn't get this impression; that is, the impression I got from the video wasn't "you should accept your interlocutor's perspective as the Only True Perspective" but "don't give Weasel Apologies."
Sometimes an apology is socially called for, but the speaker doesn't believe they did anything wrong. The most obvious examples are students (or office workers!) having an argument, in which a teacher or boss demands that one or both parties apologize to each other. Outright refusal may not be an option. A Weasel Apology is likely to result, but is pretty much morally neutral under the circumstances.
The difficulty arises when you have a Bottom Line problem. e.g., your mind should go:
"Did I do something wrong?"
Yes. (Apologize.)
No. (Don't.)
But sometimes it actually goes:
"Uh oh, I'm supposed to apologize now. Will that make me look like I did something wrong?"
Note the absence of an actual wrongness-check in the second form. I think this is what the video is actually railing against, IMO justifiably.
But there is a third version:
"Did I do something wrong?"
Yes. (Will an apology be used against me?)
No. (Apologize.)
Yes. (Weasel it.)
No. (Is an apology socially called for? )
This actually does have a wrongness-check, but still results in Weasel Apologies. The video does not cover this case. I'm not sure being incomplete is a strike against it, though.
Edited to add: There is an ambiguity here, in that there's a difference between internalizing that you've done something wrong and internalizing the moral system of an accuser. I interpreted the video as talking about #1, but it seems at least a few others interpreted it as #2. Internalization[1] is good to do and bad to weasel out of, assuming whatever you did is wrong according to your moral code. Internalization[2] is shitty to demand, but probably a bad idea to weasel out of too. If it's being demanded for Political Reasons, they're going to notice. Best option is just plain refusal, if possible.
Then I believe that you missed it. What you say was in the video (and I mentioned it), but the part about accepting the supposed victim's claims of being hurt as proof that you sinned (your "Only True Perspective" goes a bit too far) is there and is the backbone of the video.
The video's complete list of claims, in a brief form:
Points 2-4 basically set up the premise that someone's feelings being hurt by your words means you've done something bad and should apologize. You're not allowed to question the appropriateness of those feelings, and you're not allowed to introduce your intent. Your own moral judgement is never mentioned.