The correlation of white people who say “Well, apparently I’m a racist no matter what I do” to white people who are actually entrenched in their racist views is almost 1:1.

You may be the exception, of course. Those commenters were apparently just playing the odds.

Hmmm – OK, I can see a number of things here and they the potential to slide off in various gnarley directions that I’m reluctant to persue further on what is John’s blog and emphatically not my soapbox!

Paul – the difficulty with that argument is that what constitues sufficient background in order to contribute to a discussion? I like John’s books – but since I have no standing within the publishing industry or book trade it could be argued my opinion is worthless and should not be offered. I’m not sure that would be a good thing (especially when I say things like ‘Buy Scalzi’s books, they’re great!’).

Obviously I thought I had sufficent background knowledge to comment here, others disagreed. But who is the arbiter of whether someone can comment or not? (OK, here it is ultimately Mr. Scalzi, it’s his space. But you aren’t John)

Ann – I take your point, but it’s a tad tangential to what I was trying to get across. That’s almost certainly my fault. The main thrust of my comment was supposed to be that no matter how trivial the issue or gracious the apology there will always be people who will drag the past up beyond all reason. The comment was supposed to be relevant and general rather than specific and instructive and certainly not critical of anyone specifically.

Your reply is well made and understood though :)

My comment could have been more pithy, better phrased and all-round better worded to avoid misunderstandings. Unfortunately, the only way I know of practicing making pithy, well-phrased and better worded comments is by trying in the big web outside.

The trouble with the medium is that even the tiniest failure will attract a wholly disproportionate level of scorn and vitriol – which creates upset on all sides (see the posts above for an example), which again is relevant to the original maelstrom.

With that I’ll shut up before I say something that justly merits the Rubber Mallet of Doom or mires myself still further.

Peace.

Welcome to RaceFail.

[thanks for fixing my html. You'd never know I do this stuff for a living, would you.]

Also, regarding apologies, when one apologizes one accepts that some people may not accept the apology, or may assume the apology is in bad faith. One does not apologize for others, even if others benefit from it. One apologizes because it’s what one expects of one’s self.

Okay, you’re crazy (you did say we could!)

The thing is, all apologies are not created equal. Mr Scalzi got his right – he acknowledged exactly where he’d gone wrong, in a way which showed he understood why people were upset, accepted blame for his own mistakes, and went about doing something concrete to remedy those mistakes. That was a Good Apology. (Another example might be Kevin Rudd’s apology to the indigineous people of Australia, except he didn’t follow it up with concrete action. An apology which is all noise and no action, is useless.)

It’s also a very rare example, as most people don’t know how to apologise, and since they see Bad Apologies offered. As Miley Cyrus did when she made fun of Asians.

Now I only know of you what I’ve seen here, and while my gut tells me you probably acted a particular way, statistically, you are more likely to have screwed it up than otherwise, because most people *do*. So in your mind, you offered what was a perfectly acceptable response and apology for whatever you said or did, but to the people you offended, it may have come across very differently. I’m sure you’ve been on the other end of a Bad Apology – utilities, authorities, schools, politicians all offer them – and I’m sure you’ve been exasperated by them. You may think you *didn’t* apologise like that. Without knowing exactly what you said, I can’t be sure. But Bad Apologies are the things which keep arguments angry and boiling, and of course they’re not accepted.

As for your experience being instructive – no, sorry, it simply isn’t. *You* should learn from Scalzi. He did it right, and there are many people involved in RaceFail who need to follow his example. Not least of all a couple of writers who keep ‘apologising’, retracting their words, or negating them by their actions, who have created the expectation of bad faith to the point where apologies alone are treated with suspicion.

All I saw in your posts was that Scalzi had made a mistake by apologising. And he hasn’t. Not in any way. Not saying there isn’t more to do, and I think he knows that, as we all do, but the apology is in no way a capitulation, a loss, or a failure.

Paragraphs 1-3 were perhaps not completely relevant to the immediate subject and could have been left out, but I was trying to do this thing called “setting the background”.

Which does beg the question that if you have no interest in finding out the background and history of this particular discussion and all the has preceded it, why then would you assume in any way that the background of your particular past experience is relative to my commenting on *your* comment.

Which was rather the point I was making, yes?

So, please forgive me for making a broad statement and drawing a conclusion about you and your past frakas. You see, I have no idea what has been going on with you in the past (although I can hazard a good guess based on your summary), but I’m still going to comment and draw conclusions.

See how that works?

Reread my post. All of it. Especially the bit about apologising on the internet.

Although I had not been following the original racefail argument I have had direct experience of the result of apologising on the internet and wrote a little about that.

Call me crazy, but on a thread entitled “Apologies” relating to making apologies on the internet I had the crazy notion that my own experiences of apologising on the internet in paragraphs 4-6 might be relevant.

Paragraphs 1-3 were perhaps not completely relevant to the immediate subject and could have been left out, but I was trying to do this thing called “setting the background”.

And then I get two total who not only proclaim that I had no right to have an opinion on the subject I did know about, but also imply I’m “entrenched in my racist views” to boot.

Which kind of demonstrates my point with not only a serving of irony in spades but with an exrta side order of irony with a double ironic topping.

Gotta love the interwebs…………..

Dudes: When I think I need an apology, I’ll ask for it. If you don’t see me ask for an apology, you should assume I’m of the opinion I don’t need one. On the other hand, some people may feel the need to offer an apology to you for their own karmic reasons, not to mention wanting to repair any damage to their relationship with you…

“We have met the meta, and he is us.”