Hacker News Reader

Comment by Wxc2jjJmST9XWWL | Hacker News Reader

The lesson here is to ask people for advice before writing public statements (for one), and before threatening with lawsuits in private communication.

1) You apologize, but basically the other person did something wrong?

2) You invoke sympathy for being a "struggling kid from Jordan fighting for more than a decade to build something" ; so what? So now you're the victim?

Your reaction to all of this is comedy gold. Hire a PR person (who never would have signed off on your comment), do some management/communication courses and start being professional. You're running a business, and you don't look the part. Did anyone in your company screen your comment and say "this is a good response, post it"? I doubt it.

View on HN

>The lesson here is

The lesson here is never apologize on the internet because that'll be thrown back in your face.

I see what you mean and there's of course some truth to it. He's stuck in a corner and no matter what he does now, some will write if off as insincere. I don't doubt that.

But besides honing communication skills and maybe tune back his ego some (for the future), do you really think the whole situation (including his apology) would not have been vastly improved by consulting with someone knowledgeable in PR?

If you think his apology sounds sincere and is worded appropriately, or his Twitter activity since the fiasco, does (or has done) him any good, then I guess we disagree on this.

Not really. Don't apologize unless you first Google "how to apologize" and are willing to mostly follow the advice you get. The problem is that to follow that advice you need to publicly accept that you were the bad guy unequivocally which many high ego people are not willing to do.

I guess my problem with this (and with the idea of the "right way" to give an apology in general) is, what if you weren't the bad guy unequivocally?

Say someone punches me and out of anger I stab him. I apologize for stabbing him. But I'm not going to say I was the bad guy unequivocally, because I wasn't. He punched me and he punched first. He's at least, like, 10% the bad guy. That doesn't mean my apology for stabbing him is insincere. I regret that part 100%. But it's not wrong for me to say "I still think he shouldn't have punched me" because otherwise it's like I'm admitting to stabbing him for no reason, which isn't true.

I get that one goal of an apology is to make amends to people who have been hurt/offended. Those people understandably want to see the apologizer grovel without hesitation. But humans have both a head and a heart, so shouldn't being accurate in one's apology be an equally important goal?

Not taking a side here either way. Just something I've noticed about the social expectations around apologies in general.

“I apologize for stabbing them.” Period. End of sentence.

Not “I apologize for stabbing them BUT they started it”

The latter is just trying to justify and excuse the bad behavior and save face. A true apology shows remorse and that’s it.

> The latter is just trying to justify and excuse the bad behavior and save face

Ok, but in the example that was given, it does justify it, a little bit.

It doesn't justify it completely, but I would absolutely have more empathy for someone who stabbed someone out of some amount of self defense, than I would for someone who stabbed someone for no reason.

Do you really believe, that in the stabbing example, someone who stabs someone, for literally no reason at all, is exactly the same as someone who did it, in response to being assaulted first?

If your goal is to apologize, you don’t need to justify your actions. That’s what people are criticizing.

So then you agree or disagree, in the specific example, of someone responding in self defense, as opposed to stabbing someone for no reason?

You think these 2 actions are the same, or is it that 1 situation is probably not as bad?

This is not an argument in good faith and you know it. We aren't talking about these hypothetical situations and my opinions on them, we're talking about what makes an apology an apology.

Kindly take your sealioning elsewhere.

> we're talking about what makes an apology an apology.

Ok, and in the situation of the stabbing/assault, you really think it would be unreasonable for someone to point out that they got attacked first?

That does not seem unreasonable. If someone got attacked, and then responded with too much force, it would still be reasonable to point out that someone got attacked first, while also saying that attacking back with too much force was bad.

In the case of someone getting attacked first, it is both OK to point that out, and also say that the response was over the top.

If you disagree then you are basically saying that attacking someone unprovoked is equivalently bad as to attacking someone in response to an attack.

And I am not sure why you don't recognize the importance of also pointing out that an attack was in response to another attack.

That seems pretty important to point out.

It is pretty reasonable to both recognize that something went too far, while also explaining that there was a cause to it, and that it was in response to another attack.

Bingo, apologizing and then going "but <they deserved it / totally provoked me / blah blah blah>" is anything but an apology, it's just a cheap attempt at winning in the court of public opinion: "Yeah I was wrong but I was right, actually" is just a confession with some faux remorse veneer and a rationalization stapled to it.

what if they deny that they started it?

Don't fake apologise with a "he started it", on or off the internet.

Especially when you say you are sorry but do not mean it. There's no BUT in an apology but there's a BUT in his apology, sooo...

It will be thrown back in your face if the apology comes out as insincere. I guess the lesson is to not apologize unless you really mean it.

I don't like this lesson; I rather a shitty attempt at an apology than no apology at all, even if it's obvious this apology would've never came without the attention of this post blowing up.

"Never apologize to a mob."

I think people should have more humility. Yes, he was wrong to be a jerk over email and threaten his former intern. However, apologizing for bad behavior and stating what you will do to correct it is what we should hope people who act inappropriately do. When they do act this way, it's wrong to heap more scorn on them, even if it does feel good.

Have you ever been obnoxious to anyone? How would you hope others would treat your apologies for poor behavior?

By not making a manipulative “apology” that tries to still put the blame on the victim and cast myself as the real victim.

Textbook abusive behavior.

The classic “I’m sorry you were offended”

Assume that the intern actually was in the wrong. Should you apologize for your behavior anyway?

I'm not saying that Radon was wrong or Amajad was right, by the way. I'm constructing a hypothetical about how one should respond if they really didn't do something wrong, because an apology seems inappropriate, and this comment seems like it's taking the assumption that Amajad is in the wrong without actually backing up that position.

Yes, the appropriateness Amjad's response does depend on the specifics of the situation and whether his behavior was bad. That is astutely observed.

You question the sincerity of his apology, then tell him to hire a PR firm.

> You question the sincerity of his apology, then tell him to hire a PR firm.

So? The wording of his apology leaves doubt about its sincerity, which (in addition to the whole ordeal to begin with) lets me believe he would greatly profit from training and advice on matters of communication.

I don't understand what you're trying to imply. That 'PR' automatically seems insincere somehow? Well, better a safely worded statement written by PR than a crude comment that lets your ego shine through, doesn't really remedy the situation and worsens it?

I guess I'm more interested in him growing as a person. I do understand where you are coming from.

A PR firm that helps him realize what his words come off as might actually help him grow as a person.

>>That 'PR' automatically seems insincere somehow?

uh, yes? I think that is a pretty reasonable statement. I am not wise on the ways of PR firms but my expectation is that it would involve a lot of some one else using your voice to smooth feathers while you went and were absent for a while. I'm just not seeing a world where hiring a PR firm results in better more sincere apologies. That would make a frankly incredible article though.

PR firms are generally experienced with how to communicate well in public.

The vast majority of people just don't have any experience with public communications. Most people write shit that does not get read by anyone, especially as they develop their skills.

When a person without these skills attempts to communicate matters that require a certain amount of care, they are bound to fuck up. Now, does this mean that they're actually a "bad" person? Maybe. Should they learn how to communicate in ways that don't inflame the situation, but calm it down? Absolutely. Irrespective of what their character or intentions are, being able to communicate effectively is absolutely crucial.

In this case though, my personal opinion is that this person is just a huge jerk. He seems to have raised a lot of money, seen someone do a legitimately better job than what his firm (which raised a lot of money) did, had conflicting feelings, and just wanted to seemingly quash this little person with his new found power. Regardless, a PR firm would have at least been someone he could practice his message with, get feedback on it, maybe that process itself would make him reconsider his actions.

ok, you still haven't addressed how hiring a PR firm interacts with sincerity, especially given how it is literally hiring some one to decide what your messaging is. i don't see the step where only people who just need a little help expressing themselves hire PR firms.

> how hiring a PR firm interacts with sincerity

And importantly (arguably, more importantly), how it interacts with perception of sincerity. I don't know about other people, but to me, if PR is involved, I treat every word as manipulation, unless there's a strong reason to believe otherwise. Maybe there are PR firms that enforce 100% honesty in communication, but if they are, it doesn't seem to be a common occurrence.

And doubly so given the context. Amjad may be a CEO, and the apology is public on HN, but this is still mostly a personal conflict - it would be weird to involve a PR company in a personal dispute.

It just seems like addressing the symptom, rather than the cause - that you shouldn't instantly whip out your big $20m legal stick to threaten someone.

Using a PR firm might result in him just having some nice sounding text, instead of understanding the error of his ways and fixing it.

The problem isn't that the apology doesn't sound sincere. The problem (but really, the saving grace that leaves room for redemption) is that he doesn't have enough writing skill to conceal his underlying, actual insincerity. Hiring a PR firm would just make things worse - they would just teach him to lie better about his level of sincerity. PR firms don't make money by fixing your character...they make money by hiding your character / by helping you sound credible when you say whatever they advise you to say to protect your business interest, regardless of whether it's true or whether you believe it. Once a PR firm enters the scene almost no one can escape being compromised and corrupted beyond full redemption

Incidentally, I have no opinion on whether he should apologize or who's more in the right. I just think it would be beautiful to see a person in his position be completely honest, disinterested, and forthright

Reply on news.ycombinator.com