Mise
isle of lucy
...held belief?
A few examples, for the purposes of discussion, of 'sincerely held beliefs' (google if you're unaware of the incidents):
Rush Limbaugh's "slut" remarks
Gordon Brown's calling an old Northern lady a "bigoted woman" during the election campaign
Mel Gibson's "[expletive] jews", and related anti-Semitic rants
Sepp Blatter's "there is no racism" and that victims of racism should simply shake hands with the racist guy and everything will be fine
Examples I'm not talking about:
<Insert Comedian Here> "<insert racist joke here>"
<Insert Celebrity Here> "<insert inappropriate party theme here>"
<Insert Politician Here> "<insert gaffe here>"
What I'm talking about isn't gaffes or jokes, whether malign or innocently intended. I'm talking about sincerely held beliefs about a subject. Now you could say that Gordon Brown was just flustered, tired or frustrated when he called that woman bigoted, and it was just said in the heat of the moment (we've all been there), but for now, let's assume that he genuinely believed that she was bigoted. Afterall, she was saying things that I, personally, believe are the hallmarks of a bigoted woman. Similarly, you could (less convincingly) argue that Limbaugh's comments were made in order to get attention, raise his profile, or "satirise" the debate (whatever that means). But let's assume that Limbaugh was, in fact, expressing a sincerely held belief (and one that frankly a lot of people might agree with).
Should any politician, journalist, or public figure apologise for expressing what he truly believes?
Pre-emptive warning: I'm not talking about freedom of speech, so for the love of god, don't bring that up. For the avoidance of doubt, freedom of speech is a guarantee that the state will not prevent people from expressing their opinions. It doesn't mean that the press or the public can't browbeat public figures into retracting statements, or whatever. So simply saying that public figures have the right to express their beliefs doesn't mean that they shouldn't apologise for whether or how they choose to express them.
For me, a public figure should apologise when their opinion actually changes. So if Brown really does -- and still does -- believe that Gillian Whatshername was a bigoted woman, then he shouldn't apologise for that. He should defend his beliefs, instead. Of course, politically, the apology was necessary, and it's not worth picking a fight over during election time, when everyone's minds are concentrated on the recession and whatnot. But more generally, a public figure should defend their sincerely held beliefs, instead of pretending to not hold them and issuing a phony "non-apology apology". If his beliefs have truly changed, then of course an apology is necessary -- necessary not for the public's benefit, but because a sincere change in belief would necessarily compel him to apologise. And the apology would be sincere, too.
Now, there are probably some people who think that people should apologise for expressing their views insensitively. That is, Rush Limbaugh could have expressed his belief that the woman was a slut in a less insensitive way. He didn't need to call her a slut in order to get his point across. He could have said that she was spending more on contraception than is reasonable and fair, and so the government shouldn't subsidise her excesses; the government should subsidise her only to the point that it is reasonable and fair to subsidise her, and he doesn't believe that $3k over 3 years is a reasonable and fair level of subsidy. But that skirts around the issue. He does, for whatever reason, believe that she is a slut. It may have been inappropriate, insensitive, and unproductive to call her a slut, but he nonetheless believes that she is a slut. Calling her a slut is clearly a stupid thing, not just for his own ad revenues, but also for the wider cause that he is trying to advance. But that doesn't mean that he should apologise to the woman for calling her a slut: that means he should apologise to his employer, for lost ad revenues, and to other, more productive advocates of his cause.
But perhaps Limbaugh should apologise for the hurt caused in expressing his beliefs? If I said to someone whose father just died, "your dad was a dick", that would clearly warrant an apology. But it warrants an apology of the "non-apology apology" variety -- the kind that we all supposedly hate. It warrants an apology for the hurt caused, but not for the statement itself. It says, "I'm sorry that what I said hurt you" (or "I apologise", rather than "I'm sorry"). "But I still believe that what I said was true." Or, to put it in a more doubletalky way:
"Nobody is sorrier than me that the police officer had to spend his valuable time writing out a parking ticket on my car. Though from my personal standpoint I know for a certainty that the meter had not yet expired, please accept my expression of deep regret at this unfortunate incident." --Bruce McCall in NYT / wiki article I linked earlier.
Here, he apologises for the police officer's suffering, but does not apologise or accept responsibility for his actions. Why? Because he is sorry for the policemen's suffering, but still believes that what he did was correct! That, to me, is a more sincere, and more honest apology than an apology that says "I'm sorry for parking in a no parking zone". Because he would be lying if he said that. So if Rush Limbaugh issued a "real" apology -- i.e. said the words that everyone wanted to hear -- it wouldn't be the right thing to do. The apology he actually gave (you know, that doubletalky apology that actually continued to slag the woman off in the end) was an honest, sincere apology.
So as reprehensible as I find Rush Limbaugh's statements to be, his apology was the right kind of apology to be made, given his true beliefs. But it was completely useless. People easily "saw through" the apology, realising correctly that Limbaugh's apology wasn't the kind of apology that indicated a change in belief, but rather an apology that merely acknowledges that hurt and offense was brought to the recipient. And the advertisers are still pulling out, so from a "pragmatic apology" standpoint, it was still useless. So if it's useless, why demand an apology? Why even talk about apologies? As I said, if a change in belief has genuinely occurred, then an apology is a natural consequence of that sincere change in belief. So if the apology is sincere then the demand is unnecessary; if you have to force someone to apologise, then it's not going to be sincere.
That's what I think, anyway.
A few examples, for the purposes of discussion, of 'sincerely held beliefs' (google if you're unaware of the incidents):
Rush Limbaugh's "slut" remarks
Gordon Brown's calling an old Northern lady a "bigoted woman" during the election campaign
Mel Gibson's "[expletive] jews", and related anti-Semitic rants
Sepp Blatter's "there is no racism" and that victims of racism should simply shake hands with the racist guy and everything will be fine
Examples I'm not talking about:
<Insert Comedian Here> "<insert racist joke here>"
<Insert Celebrity Here> "<insert inappropriate party theme here>"
<Insert Politician Here> "<insert gaffe here>"
What I'm talking about isn't gaffes or jokes, whether malign or innocently intended. I'm talking about sincerely held beliefs about a subject. Now you could say that Gordon Brown was just flustered, tired or frustrated when he called that woman bigoted, and it was just said in the heat of the moment (we've all been there), but for now, let's assume that he genuinely believed that she was bigoted. Afterall, she was saying things that I, personally, believe are the hallmarks of a bigoted woman. Similarly, you could (less convincingly) argue that Limbaugh's comments were made in order to get attention, raise his profile, or "satirise" the debate (whatever that means). But let's assume that Limbaugh was, in fact, expressing a sincerely held belief (and one that frankly a lot of people might agree with).
Should any politician, journalist, or public figure apologise for expressing what he truly believes?
Pre-emptive warning: I'm not talking about freedom of speech, so for the love of god, don't bring that up. For the avoidance of doubt, freedom of speech is a guarantee that the state will not prevent people from expressing their opinions. It doesn't mean that the press or the public can't browbeat public figures into retracting statements, or whatever. So simply saying that public figures have the right to express their beliefs doesn't mean that they shouldn't apologise for whether or how they choose to express them.
For me, a public figure should apologise when their opinion actually changes. So if Brown really does -- and still does -- believe that Gillian Whatshername was a bigoted woman, then he shouldn't apologise for that. He should defend his beliefs, instead. Of course, politically, the apology was necessary, and it's not worth picking a fight over during election time, when everyone's minds are concentrated on the recession and whatnot. But more generally, a public figure should defend their sincerely held beliefs, instead of pretending to not hold them and issuing a phony "non-apology apology". If his beliefs have truly changed, then of course an apology is necessary -- necessary not for the public's benefit, but because a sincere change in belief would necessarily compel him to apologise. And the apology would be sincere, too.
Now, there are probably some people who think that people should apologise for expressing their views insensitively. That is, Rush Limbaugh could have expressed his belief that the woman was a slut in a less insensitive way. He didn't need to call her a slut in order to get his point across. He could have said that she was spending more on contraception than is reasonable and fair, and so the government shouldn't subsidise her excesses; the government should subsidise her only to the point that it is reasonable and fair to subsidise her, and he doesn't believe that $3k over 3 years is a reasonable and fair level of subsidy. But that skirts around the issue. He does, for whatever reason, believe that she is a slut. It may have been inappropriate, insensitive, and unproductive to call her a slut, but he nonetheless believes that she is a slut. Calling her a slut is clearly a stupid thing, not just for his own ad revenues, but also for the wider cause that he is trying to advance. But that doesn't mean that he should apologise to the woman for calling her a slut: that means he should apologise to his employer, for lost ad revenues, and to other, more productive advocates of his cause.
But perhaps Limbaugh should apologise for the hurt caused in expressing his beliefs? If I said to someone whose father just died, "your dad was a dick", that would clearly warrant an apology. But it warrants an apology of the "non-apology apology" variety -- the kind that we all supposedly hate. It warrants an apology for the hurt caused, but not for the statement itself. It says, "I'm sorry that what I said hurt you" (or "I apologise", rather than "I'm sorry"). "But I still believe that what I said was true." Or, to put it in a more doubletalky way:
"Nobody is sorrier than me that the police officer had to spend his valuable time writing out a parking ticket on my car. Though from my personal standpoint I know for a certainty that the meter had not yet expired, please accept my expression of deep regret at this unfortunate incident." --Bruce McCall in NYT / wiki article I linked earlier.
Here, he apologises for the police officer's suffering, but does not apologise or accept responsibility for his actions. Why? Because he is sorry for the policemen's suffering, but still believes that what he did was correct! That, to me, is a more sincere, and more honest apology than an apology that says "I'm sorry for parking in a no parking zone". Because he would be lying if he said that. So if Rush Limbaugh issued a "real" apology -- i.e. said the words that everyone wanted to hear -- it wouldn't be the right thing to do. The apology he actually gave (you know, that doubletalky apology that actually continued to slag the woman off in the end) was an honest, sincere apology.
So as reprehensible as I find Rush Limbaugh's statements to be, his apology was the right kind of apology to be made, given his true beliefs. But it was completely useless. People easily "saw through" the apology, realising correctly that Limbaugh's apology wasn't the kind of apology that indicated a change in belief, but rather an apology that merely acknowledges that hurt and offense was brought to the recipient. And the advertisers are still pulling out, so from a "pragmatic apology" standpoint, it was still useless. So if it's useless, why demand an apology? Why even talk about apologies? As I said, if a change in belief has genuinely occurred, then an apology is a natural consequence of that sincere change in belief. So if the apology is sincere then the demand is unnecessary; if you have to force someone to apologise, then it's not going to be sincere.
That's what I think, anyway.
