It's worth emphasizing the specific commitment to "permanently remove myself from online life." Rather than live up to that commitment and allow Harris to move on, Freddie has decided not only to remain Extremely Online but to keep re-hashing the situation over and over again. It certainly undermines the original apology, and make Harris look like a chump for being so graceful about it.
For context, here's Freddie's contemporaneous apology, which he has not only deleted from his website but from the Wayback Machine as well (sorry for the weird site, only copy I could find): https://www.falserapetimeline.org/false-rape-5950.pdf
Some excerpts:
"Crucially, despite my mental state at
the time, I knew when I sent those tweets that they were untrue. I am responsible
for having made those false allegations, and that makes me a liar, it makes me
guilty of slander, and it makes me someone who undermined the profound
seriousness of rape allegations."
". I have abandoned all social media permanently. I
have stopped freelance writing. I have in general tried to permanently remove
myself from online life and from the world of political writing in which Malcolm
resides and I once resided. These changes are not attempts to make up for what
I’ve done, really; they are just matters of self-preservation as I try to build a life
where I do not cause harm to people anymore. I have fully committed to constant
treatment, and I have fully committed to going away. I am so profoundly sorry"
I remember reading this at the time and feeling the pain through the screen. He seemed genuinely ashamed.
My feeling is that the initial apology has been undermined by a) trying to memory hole it and b) writing all these blog posts quasi-defending himself. Would be nice if Freddie and his IDW friends displayed such forbearance and grace for the college students and journalists they make their living attacking. Perhaps those people are going through some mental issues as well.
The good news is, Freddie seems to be doing better than ever. He got a fat advance from Substack and even just had an op-ed published in the liberal New York Times.
He has not made any meaningful apologies, and each example that might be construed as such is buried in qualifications and lengthy tirades about his persecution complex. Meanwhile, he continues to constantly post hateful tirades complaining about the fact that the free software community holds people accountable for their behavior. An apology without taking accountability for wrongdoing or fostering any meaningful change in behavior or attitude is worthless.
In today's culture, a simple apology might have set him up for a year-long social media shitstorm including doxxing. So I can totally relate to why he refused to talk to the press.
He's entitled to share his mitigating context. It may well be persuasively exculpatory for a lot of reasonable people. He goes far beyond that in this argument, suggesting that he would find dishonest any description of his misconduct that doesn't capture his full state of mind; for instance, any claim that he attempted to "cancel" Malcolm Harris.
Frankly, he is retracting something because is wrong and he is broadcasting that retraction on the largest platform he has access to: his platform. He has sincerely apologized to and made clear who he has harmed: Ubiquiti.
So like, what do you want? What more should he say? You say "maybe he sees the facts differently" as if we as anonymous internet crowds are entitled to a post-mortem on his psychological state. This strikes me as distinctly parasocial.
I agree. Forgiveness does not mean that he should retain his role. However I think his comments have been distorted and I'm not sure this is any worse than him eating the skin off his foot.
Back in 2010 He said that he regretted writing that message and that he'd matured a lot. The decade that followed that apology, his subsequent actions time and time again spoke much louder.
Yeah, pretty much this. I'm actually willing to accept that this wasn't initially meant to be just a PR gesture, but a sincere attempt to help. But now his tantrums over not getting to be the hero have gone and poisoned it all, rendering it indistinguishable-from-PR whether or not it was intended as such in the first place.
Is he arguing that or just asserting it because it’s uncomfortable for him to have to hear consistent criticism from people online in a way he was previously shielded from?
To be fair, that disavowal came after his former behavior and views - which went not only accepted but defended by his peers and followers for years (including on HN following his "cancellation") finally became too much for people around him to bear. No other public figure with a history like his would be given even a shadow of a benefit of the doubt over nothing but a brief blog entry. If he were a politician or a celebrity HN would want to see him hanged with the rest of the degenerate elites.
I hope that he has changed his mind, but until there's some evidence that he's changed his behavior, there's no reason to assume he was doing anything but covering his ass (possibly at the behest of someone else) and trying to save his position and status. That's what would be assumed of anyone else, that's what should be assumed of him.
Seems like he's being removed for being an asshole for years and years, and for things he very explicitly did say, repeatedly, for years. And this seems very much like a "straw that broke the camel's back".
I didn't see that post originally. I saw the 'follow up' where one of the writers complained about getting abuse on twitter. That's obviously wrong but I find it hard to have sympathy for someone who attacks someone who innocent1y made a mistake and then cried as they apologies on camera. It seems that on the internet it's no longer possible naively do something wrong (and I would argue there was nothing wrong with him wearing that shirt), apologize, and move on. Writers who want to get clicks will try to drum up rage anyway and won't let anyone move on.
Assuming McClure follows through by 1) refraining from harassing any more people and 2) making things right with the particular people he hurt, it doesn't matter whether he is sincere or not. How would you even tell what's in his mind? What matters is that he has changed the common knowledge of what behavior he publicly endorses (or in this case, condemns) [1]. His apology is proof of sorts that he will follow a better standard of behavior, because now he stands to be treated as a liar and hypocrite on top of the normal punishment if he backslides.
From our side, if we as a community continue to denigrate him even after he has done the most he possibly could to change the moral consensus on this topic for the better, we're going to discourage others from apologizing and drive them to deny. Why bear the cost of admitting you're wrong if there's no benefit?
[1] I highly recommend Rational Ritual: Culture, Coordination, and Common Knowledge by Michael Suk-Young Chwe for a game-theoretic exploration of topics like this. http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9998.html
We have him on record joking around with someone about actions he didn't take. It's hardly the confession the breathless Twitter hordes want it to be, not to ruin your emotionally resonating state of being
I don't get why he doesn't simply apologize, take a few months break from publicity to think things over and then move on.
Instead he seems to prefer to step down from what he has been doing for the last 30 years. Does he really regret nothing?
On a human level I sympathize with the women he has offended (I know the story is also about his behavior over the years), but I also worry about him as well, I hope he stays in good health and spirit.
reply