Moving On

by publius

Ed Whelan has written both publicly and privately and apologized.  I know it was not an easy thing to do, and it is of course accepted.  I therefore consider the matter done, and don't intend on writing about it anymore.

The real story here wasn't really about me anyway -- it's about whether the norm of pseudonymity is a good thing.  And there's a legitimate debate about that.  Personally, I think that pseudonymity is a net benefit, whatever other costs it brings.  More voices are better than less -- and pseudonymity (to me) enriches the public sphere by adding voices that could not otherwise be heard.  But people can disagree in good faith about these things, as Whelan correctly notes.

Anyway, I'm moving on.  I appreciate Whelan's update.  And that's all I have to say.  Let's talk about Jon & Kate Plus 8 instead.  I've heard they hired attorneys.

Comments

[jp2]

Well, that was unexpected. I hope after your martyrdom we can expect this debate over 'outing' to simmer down a bit.

On the plus side, all the attention brought me to your site for the first time and I have really enjoyed your writings, as well as Hilzoy's. I hope there are lots more like me because you do quality work here. And now I know it's legally sound, as well. : )

[von]

Take note: This is how it's done.

[hilzoy]

Good for him. And welcome, jp2!

[Paulk]

I think this is a good time to recognize that Whelan has done something right. I won't question his motives for doing the right thing, but I do think this is a pretty big acknowledgment that there are boundaries that those who operate in good faith on the web should not cross and that we can all agree upon what those should be.

I think this could be a very big moment for the whole community. I'm just sorry Publius had to suffer the consequences for it.

Keep up the excellent work, man. I'm looking forward to talking about something besides you. :)

[Gary Farber]

As I said in the previous thread, I don't understand: Ed Whelan writes about something that is "completely apart from any debate over our respective rights and completely apart from our competing views on the merits of pseudonymous blogging" and he apologizes for [having] been uncharitable in my conduct towards the blogger who has used the pseudonym Publius" in some way.

What is this thing that is completely apart from "the merits of pseudonymous blogging" that he is apologizing for?

I seriously can't make heads nor tails of this. Was there some other interaction going on that he's referring to? What's he talking about here?

And where does he stand on the actual issue of "pseudonymous blogging," and his outing you, as well as his stand on the right of everyone to out any and all pseudonymous bloggers/commenters? That stand is an attack on everyone who writes on the internet who doesn't use the name on their birth certificate. Is he withdrawing that stand?

You're right, publius: this isn't about you.

"But people can disagree in good faith about these things, as Whelan correctly notes."

Sorry, where did he say that? In some other post somewhere? He doesn't say anything of the kind in the post you link to. There's not a word there about disagreeing in good faith. Where did Whelen write about disagreeing in good faith about... what?

"For that reason, I recognize that Publius may understandably regard my apology as inadequate."

You can regard it as adequate or inadequate as you like, but let me be one of the first to say that it's completely incoherent.

[Gary Farber]

"...but I do think this is a pretty big acknowledgment that there are boundaries that those who operate in good faith on the web should not cross and that we can all agree upon what those should be."

[scratches head] To what are you referring? Whelan explicitly states that he's not addressing the issue of "the merits of pseudonymous blogging." What "acknowledgement" are you referring to?

[Meditative_Zebra]

Kudos to Ed Whelan for the personal and public apology. I know (from experience) that you really have to swallow hard to apologize and back down when you were in the wrong and even more so when it happens so publicly.

Also, I think it's good of him to acknowledge that his apology doesn't necessarily undo what he has done but that it's worthwhile to make the apology regardless.

[Mr Furious]

Personally I think Whelan's apology is a load of shit, and probably coerced. On a personal level, Whelan had more than his fair share of right-wing team players leaping to his defense (Goldberg, etc) and had done a pretty good job of rationalizing his behavior. I suspect NRO felt the pressure from the righties with actual intelligence (Volokh, etc)

Publius, you're a bigger man than I.

[Kant Get No Satisfaction]

Gary,

It seems clear that he's apologizing for putting publius' career and family relationships at risk. That he can make that apology "completely apart from [their] competing views on the merits of pseudonymous blogging" is also clear: Ed can think it's worthless, publius can think it's worthwhile, and both can agree that outing publius was wrong. Do you feel differently?

[Anarch]

I would be more impressed by his apology were he not getting his ass handed to him by the fury of the internets, but it's not me Whelan has to impress. So: I'm glad that the issue has been resolved to as close to your satisfaction as can be reasonably hoped.

[Paulk]

Was Whelan's original reasoning coherent? Nothing he's said in these matters has made a lick of sense.

The act of apologizing is significant, as is the recognition that Publius may "understandably regard [his] apology as inadequate." I concede that beneath this intended appearance of magnanimity, he's created for himself an out.

But the read the apology itself, symbolically, as a far greater act than any attempt by Whelan to limit what the apology is for. I suspect that a multitude of factors has played upon him over the past two days to lead to this result. Publius is nothing like the caricature his detractors have labeled him, so he will say out of this discussion—and probably wouldn't appreciate our questioning of either motives or the literal applicability of the apology itself.

Maybe I'm in too much shock and am being too kind, but any kind of unqualified apology of his behavior (even if he refrains from commenting on pseudononymous blogging as an act) is a vindication of Publius in this debate.

[Warren Terra]

I'm not inclined to be terribly generous to Whelan - and as Gary notes, Whelan apparently continues to abhor pseudonymous blogging, so that it's far from clear what Whelan feels is apologizing for, in what way Whelan feels he has been uncharitable. After all, if pseudonymity really is bad, then surely Whelan's action would require no apology.

But then, my opinion of Whelan's apology isn't the critical one here. The apology is Publius's to accept, and he has done so, and I think we should respect that.

After feelings have cooled for a while, it might be interesting to have some sort of debate about the merits of pseudonymity, although I don't think there's an especially broad range of opinion among the ObWi commenters.

[Gary Farber]

"Do you feel differently?"

I think, and feel strongly, that serious apologies are explicit as to what they're apologies for.

This is a very common view. Here is an example article on how to apologize.

It includes:

[...] Begin the apology by naming the offense and the feelings it may have caused. Be specific about the incident so that they know exactly what you're apologizing for. Make it a point to avoid using the word "but". ("I am sorry, but..." means "I am not sorry.") Also, do not say "I'm sorry you feel that way" or "I'm sorry if you were offended." Be sorry for what you did! "I'm sorry you feel that way" makes it seem like you are blaming the other person, and is not a real apology.

[...]

Find the underlying problem, describe it to the person (as an explanation, not an excuse), and tell them what you intend to do to rectify that problem so that you can avoid this mistake in the future [....]

All I know from what Whelan wrote is that he as "been uncharitable in my conduct towards the blogger who has used the pseudonym Publius" in some way -- who knows how? -- and that he apologizes for this unstated offense.

And he explicitly states that he's not apologizing over "our competing views on the merits of pseudonymous blogging." That's out. He's specifically not apologizing for that.

That's it.

First step in an apology is to state what you're apologizing for.

"...both can agree that outing publius was wrong"

He doesn't say any such thing. If he'd like to apologize for outing publius, he can say so. He specifically hasn't.

It's nice that Publius will be gracious about this; me, I'll be gracious to Ed Whelan when he actually makes a real apology, starting with saying what the heck he's apologizing for. Then he can say what he's doing to make amends.

The next step would be to clarify whether he's going to continue to attack the use of pseudonyms online. Or will he try to make amends for that error in judgment? Write articles about why he was wrong, for instance?

[jexter]

May the term "douche-bag" hang around his neck like an albatross for the rest of his career. He can't un-shit the bed, but at least he's not so totally self-absorbed to recognize that he was swimming against a flood.

You, good Professor, deserve praise for taking the high road.

If it were me, I would only take that high road for the opportunity to piss on Whelan from a great height.

jexter, aka jeff christensen

[Mike Schilling]

You do all realize that every time publius is a gentleman, he only makes Whelan look worse.

So when he comes out with a post so pitch-perfect in its magnanimity and modesty, well, all I can say is I hope I never get on his bad side.