"We’re sorry, you deserved so much better."

[Tareeq]

Alan Turing, the mathematician whose work did more than any atomic physicist to win World War II, gets a long-overdue apology from the British government.

Turing, who was gay, was forced (after the war, when he was no longer useful) to choose between prison and chemical castration. He endured two years of the latter before committing suicide.

I've never understood the mindset that opposes apologies for historic crimes. When Bill Clinton apologized for America's role in and benefit from the slave trade (in Africa, he didn't have the guts to do it in America), the usual suspects went apoplectic. But Clinton wasn't blaming them. No blame attaches to them. And an apology has no legal force. It doesn't mandate reparations to people who aren't around to enjoy the money anyway.

It was simply, as with Gordon Brown's apology to Turing, the right thing to do.

[silverjon]

Apologizing means admitting your country did something WRONG and that you are (at least occasionally) FALLIBLE. zomg

Anyway, good for them.

[Scuzz]

You are comparing apples and oranges there.

The did deserve an apology. It hadn't been that long ago and people still are alive from that time period.

Apologizing for the imprisoning of Japanese-Americans was the correct thing to do.

Apologizing for slavery now is a waste of time. Besides, many slaves were sold into slavery by blacks in their home areas. Who are you apologizing for and to whom?

[silverjon]

Apologizing for slavery now is a waste of time. Besides, many slaves were sold into slavery by blacks in their home areas. Who are you apologizing for and to whom?

It's not our fault. We didn't do it. Besides, other people were involved too. It's their fault. Nobody is even affected by these events any more. What are you complaining about?

jeebus

[silverjon]

Apologizing to Turing is a waste of time by this reckoning as well, on account of he's dead and all.

[LawBeefaroni]

Besides, many slaves were sold into slavery by blacks in their home areas. Who are you apologizing for and to whom?

Probably to slaves on behalf of a nation that created a large market for them to be sold into.

[Freezer-TPF-]

Awful story about Turing. I had no idea that happened to him.

[Mr. Fed]

How many slaves have an AI-detection test named after them, after all?

[Tareeq]

Who are you apologizing for

For the United States of America, which owned slaves, and which by law allowed the slave trade, and which enforced fugitive slave laws.

and to whom?

To the descendants of those who were enslaved, to history, to mankind. Why is that wrong? Even if it's pointless, as you contend though I disagree, why is it wrong?

For that matter, I think the United States should apologize to every Indian tribe with whom it had a treaty that it later broke. Starting with the Seminoles and the Cherokee.

[Enough]

Who are you apologizing for

For the United States of America, which owned slaves, and which by law allowed the slave trade, and which enforced fugitive slave laws.

and to whom?

To the descendants of those who were enslaved, to history, to mankind. Why is that wrong? Even if it's pointless, as you contend though I disagree, why is it wrong?

For that matter, I think the United States should apologize to every Indian tribe with whom it had a treaty that it later broke. Starting with the Iroquois and the Cherokee.

We could just as easily start with the Shoshone.

[gameoverman]

I agree with the idea that most people against apologies are that way because of an inability or straight out refusal to acknowledge a mistake. It's similar to the way 'flip flopping' has become a derogatory term in politics.

Some people really believe you do something and stand by it, even when/if it's proven wrong. To do less is some kind of weakness or something.

Given that mindset, why would you apologize to anyone for anything?

I have no problem with it, since it shows an ability to learn and improve among other things.

[Rip]

I agree with the idea that most people against apologies are that way because of an inability or straight out refusal to acknowledge a mistake. It's similar to the way 'flip flopping' has become a derogatory term in politics.

Some people really believe you do something and stand by it, even when/if it's proven wrong. To do less is some kind of weakness or something.

Given that mindset, why would you apologize to anyone for anything?

I have no problem with it, since it shows an ability to learn and improve among other things.

To quote Jethro Gibbs "Never apologize it is a sign of weakness"

[Tareeq]

To quote Jethro Gibbs "Never apologize it is a sign of weakness"

I apologize for all of the awful things I wrote about you while Octopus Overlords was down.

[silverjon]

To quote Jethro Gibbs "Never apologize it is a sign of weakness"

Funny how you can just as easily make the case that admitting your faults is a sign of strength.

[Defiant]

Yep. Alan Turing has long been a role model I identified with, and this was long overdo

However, while "I'm sorry for what happened to you" is appropriate, an actual *apology* seems a little inappropriate if the person giving it is not the person who performed the regretted action to begin with. An apology is, in part, the result of a learning process for that person, who has realized that he made a mistake and has acknowledged it and would do things differently in the same situation.

[Tareeq]

However, while "I'm sorry for what happened to you" is appropriate, an actual *apology* seems a little inappropriate if the person giving it is not the person who performed the regretted action to begin with. An apology is, in part, the result of a learning process for that person, who has realized that he made a mistake and has acknowledged it and would do things differently in the same situation.

Brown is speaking for the British government, which as a corporate entity (see a thread closer to this one) has learned, realized a mistake, and hopefully won't do it again.

It's the best one can do. Turing wasn't persecuted by a person. He was persecuted by a society, a system, and a medieval code of law. Who better to apologize, to say "sorry," than the head of the government? Who else could? It doesn't console Turing, unless one believes in an omniscient afterlife, but it may help the United Kingdom.

And again, it was right action. Right action on the part of government is so infrequent that it should be recognized whenever it occurs.

[Defiant]

However, while "I'm sorry for what happened to you" is appropriate, an actual *apology* seems a little inappropriate if the person giving it is not the person who performed the regretted action to begin with. An apology is, in part, the result of a learning process for that person, who has realized that he made a mistake and has acknowledged it and would do things differently in the same situation.

Brown is speaking for the British government, which as a corporate entity (see a thread closer to this one) has learned, realized a mistake, and hopefully won't do it again.

It's the best one can do. Turing wasn't persecuted by a person. He was persecuted by a society, a system, and a medieval code of law. Who better to apologize, to say "sorry," than the head of the government? Who else could?

I think what he did was fine and appropriate. But I don't think he apologized in the manner I was referring to - for something like that, those responsible would be the ones who should apologize. They're probably dead, of course, but then, so is Turing.

[Tareeq]

I think what he did was fine and appropriate. But I don't think he apologized in the manner I was referring to - for something like that, those responsible would be the ones who should apologize. They're probably dead, of course, but then, so is Turing.

The Catholic concepts of purgatory or perhaps Dante's first circle are comforting, aren't they? Men who meant well but erred grievously are punished severely for a long period of time until they understand and are admitted to a better state, or if not, at least they're allowed to exist forever in a not-utterly hellish version of Hell.

Of course neither of us believes in either. I don't know what you actually believe, but I'm trying to improve my miserable understanding of written (not spoken) Chinese, so that I can understand the Way a little better. I don't think that an apology contradicts the Way.

[Defiant]

I think what he did was fine and appropriate. But I don't think he apologized in the manner I was referring to - for something like that, those responsible would be the ones who should apologize. They're probably dead, of course, but then, so is Turing.

The Catholic concepts of purgatory or perhaps Dante's first circle are comforting, aren't they? Men who meant well but erred grievously are punished severely for a long period of time until they understand and are admitted to a better state, or if not, at least they're allowed to exist forever in a not-utterly hellish version of Hell.

Of course neither of us believes in either. I don't know what you actually believe, but I'm trying to improve my miserable understanding of written (not spoken) Chinese, so that I can understand the Way a little better. I don't think that an apology contradicts the Way.

I apologize on behalf of the Chinese for their creating the Chinese language instead of using English. I'm sure it was just an accident.

[msduncan]

I apologize on behalf of those who are unwilling to apologize.

[Scuzz]

Apologizing for slavery now is a waste of time. Besides, many slaves were sold into slavery by blacks in their home areas. Who are you apologizing for and to whom?

It's not our fault. We didn't do it. Besides, other people were involved too. It's their fault. Nobody is even affected by these events any more. What are you complaining about?

jeebus

I am no more to blame for slavery as i am for the Spanish Inquisition. Neither are my parents or children.

Don't get on a guilt trip for something you had no control over.

[Scuzz]

I apologize on behalf of those who are unwilling to apologize.

I apologize for your need to apologize.

[silverjon]

I am no more to blame for slavery as i am for the Spanish Inquisition. Neither are my parents or children.

Don't get on a guilt trip for something you had no control over.

Big difference between claiming direct responsibility for something and admitting it was wrong. It doesn't mean breast-beating and shouting mea culpa, just a statement to recognize that harm was done. Acknowledgment means something to people. It tells them they aren't invisible, that the past has not been forgotten.

[Rip]

To quote Jethro Gibbs "Never apologize it is a sign of weakness"

I apologize for all of the awful things I wrote about you while Octopus Overlords was down.

YOU LIE!

[Scuzz]

I am no more to blame for slavery as i am for the Spanish Inquisition. Neither are my parents or children.

Don't get on a guilt trip for something you had no control over.

Big difference between claiming direct responsibility for something and admitting it was wrong. It doesn't mean breast-beating and shouting mea culpa, just a statement to recognize that harm was done. Acknowledgment means something to people. It tells them they aren't invisible, that the past has not been forgotten.

EXACTLY...you can aknowledge qwrong was done without apologizing for something that was done by three generations ago. We can admit slavery was wrong but at this point in time an apology is just sophistry.

[tgb]

I am no more to blame for slavery as i am for the Spanish Inquisition.

Crap. I never expected the Spanish Inquisition.

And if we apologize to the Indians, can I get back all the money I lost at the Trail of Tears Resort & Casino?

[YellowKing]

Apologizing for events that happened hundreds of years ago is nothing more than grandstanding. That's why I'm against it. It can hold no true value for either the apologizer or the apologizee, because neither party was directly involved. It's nothing more than political showboating.

I'm not against admitting mistakes; I'm against admitting mistakes in a highly public manner for the shameless purpose of political gain.

[Moliere]

Acknowledging a wrong is not the same thing as trying to figure out the logistics of reparations for American slavery. I'm ok with the former as long as it doesn't lead to the latter.

[Isgrimnur]

Apologizing for events that happened hundreds of years ago is nothing more than grandstanding. That's why I'm against it. It can hold no true value for either the apologizer or the apologizee, because neither party was directly involved. It's nothing more than political showboating.

I'm not against admitting mistakes; I'm against admitting mistakes in a highly public manner for the shameless purpose of political gain.

What is there to lose when the other side of the coin, people who were not directly affected by it, are clamoring for it? On NPR last night, I heard that the reason for this apology was that a petition was delivered to the PM with 30k signatures asking for this one.

[The Preacher]

Alan Turing, the mathematician whose work did more than any atomic physicist to win World War II, gets a long-overdue apology from the British government.

Turing, who was gay, was forced (after the war, when he was no longer useful) to choose between prison and chemical castration. He endured two years of the latter before committing suicide.

I've never understood the mindset that opposes apologies for historic crimes. When Bill Clinton apologized for America's role in and benefit from the slave trade (in Africa, he didn't have the guts to do it in America), the usual suspects went apoplectic. But Clinton wasn't blaming them. No blame attaches to them. And an apology has no legal force. It doesn't mandate reparations to people who aren't around to enjoy the money anyway.

It was simply, as with Gordon Brown's apology to Turing, the right thing to do.

I had no idea. Those were dark days for even the best of countries. Blood on everyone's hands there.

[Odin]

How many slaves have an AI-detection test named after them, after all?

Actually, Voight-Kampff was a house slave in Georgia.

[ScubaV]

Acknowledging a wrong is not the same thing as trying to figure out the logistics of reparations for American slavery. I'm ok with the former as long as it doesn't lead to the latter.

Actually, reparations might not be that bad.

[noxiousdog]

I am no more to blame for slavery as i am for the Spanish Inquisition. Neither are my parents or children.

Don't get on a guilt trip for something you had no control over.

Big difference between claiming direct responsibility for something and admitting it was wrong. It doesn't mean breast-beating and shouting mea culpa, just a statement to recognize that harm was done. Acknowledgment means something to people. It tells them they aren't invisible, that the past has not been forgotten.

Doesn't that diminish real apologies?

[silverjon]

I am no more to blame for slavery as i am for the Spanish Inquisition. Neither are my parents or children.

Don't get on a guilt trip for something you had no control over.

Big difference between claiming direct responsibility for something and admitting it was wrong. It doesn't mean breast-beating and shouting mea culpa, just a statement to recognize that harm was done. Acknowledgment means something to people. It tells them they aren't invisible, that the past has not been forgotten.

Doesn't that diminish real apologies?

What is a real apology in this context? Why is it so awful to say you're sorry someone else did something a long time ago? Why is that somehow perceived as insincere?

I think failing to acknowledge something you know to have been wrong is... well, wrong.

[Defiant]

Let's take the flip side. How would people feel if, say, a member of Turing's family responded to Gordon Brown with "I forgive you"?

[Defiant]

I am no more to blame for slavery as i am for the Spanish Inquisition. Neither are my parents or children.

Don't get on a guilt trip for something you had no control over.

Big difference between claiming direct responsibility for something and admitting it was wrong. It doesn't mean breast-beating and shouting mea culpa, just a statement to recognize that harm was done. Acknowledgment means something to people. It tells them they aren't invisible, that the past has not been forgotten.

Doesn't that diminish real apologies?

How so?

[The Preacher]

Let's take the flip side. How would people feel if, say, a member of Turing's family responded to Gordon Brown with "I forgive you"?

Relatively meaningless since the man is dead.

[Defiant]

Let's take the flip side. How would people feel if, say, a member of Turing's family responded to Gordon Brown with "I forgive you"?

Relatively meaningless since the man is dead.

Well, my question was more directed at Tareeq, I have no idea about what your views of apologizing on behalf of someone else are.

[Trappin]

http://www.theamericanscholar.org/apologies-all-around/" target="_blank

This quote was heavily snipped and refashioned from a long article addressing Apologism.

[snipped]Our mania for apology stems from a radical sort of “presentism”: the belief, in practice, if not fully articulated, that the actions and actors of the past should be evaluated, and usually condemned, by present-day standards. The criteria appear perilously close to absolutes, the sort of absolutes obeisance to which allows moderately competent graduate students in sociology or culture studies to relish their moral superiority to almost any denizen of the benighted pre-Foucault past.

Presentism wants not only to judge the past by the criteria of the present, but, in a complete failure of historical imagination, can’t conceive of the criteria of the future being radically different from today’s. If the PETA imperative, for example, were to become our dominant ethos by, say, 2107, at which time no law-abiding soul would ingest animal parts or products or wear their skins and would recoil in horror at the thought that his ancestors had, what sort of apologies for history would then be forthcoming?

Will dogcatchers become the 22nd century’s version of the Gestapo, our zoos its gulag, remembered with shame?

The certain-to-be-made objection that such far-fetched examples trivialize real historical events only proves my point that few can seriously envision a future value system radically different from our own, just as, a century ago, few could have imagined Christopher Columbus charged with genocide or Lincoln branded a racist. Who, then, could have envisioned school boards renaming their Jefferson Highs because the eponym owned slaves, or regents jettisoning their university team logos as offensive to Native Americans?.

[Peacedog]

How many slaves have an AI-detection test named after them, after all?

It's more than that. I''m not able to do his contributions to computing justice. He was like Einstein.

Also, he successfully fended off the Great Old Ones no less than 3 times in his too-short life.