I think there’s evidence that both apologies are insincere, albeit for different reasons (though that may not be clear).
You literally listed the timeframe as a reason (among others) to reject both apologies.
Here are your words again:
The fact that Bostrom’s statement comes 26 years after the post in question does little to support the idea that the apology might be motivated by genuine remorse.
and:
In my eyes, this timeframe really undermines the credibility of his previous apology, to the point of making it irrelevant. If you claim to reject views just 24 hours after endorsing them so clearly, I just can’t take your word seriously.
Perhaps your other points are valid. What I’m quibbling with is just having it both ways on whether a quick turnaround or long delay indicates an insincere apology (just based on the timeframe). You’ve claimed both in this thread, and I don’t think that’s fair.
Sure, I can see that. What I meant was the timeframe in context − 26 years later being the point at which someone threatened to dig things up. I think the apology could have succeeded, but owing to its content, it wasn’t.
This is a position that’s consistent with my original post, reading it back. 26 years does little to help Bostrom—why? Not because it’s a long time in itself, but because it’s clearly the point at which something outside happens—the threat of exposure.
While I think the short timeframe is a reason itself to consider the first apology insincere, the long timeframe isn’t, at least intrinsically. Perhaps I should have made that clearer, but I hope you’ll forgive me for not doing so. If you’re disagreeing with me in good faith, I appreciate that, but my position simply isn’t how you’ve characterised it. Contrary to what you’ve said, at no point do I claim that the timeframe is a reason to reject the later apology.
My view is: Bostrom’s statement was inadequate and it came 26 years later. I maintain the fact that the timeframe doesn’t help him, as the apology is so clearly motivated by the threat of bad PR surfacing 26 years later, but the timeframe itself doesn’t make it inadequate.
The content of Bostrom’s statement informs my position here, where he expects people to believe that he didn’t endorse the position even then… I don’t need to explain this.
My view is not: Bostrom’s statement was inadequate purely because it came 26 years later.
In the case of the 26-year-later apology, the timeframe is salient to me because it represents the point at which Bostrom realised the risk that he might be exposed.
This compromises how seriously I take the apology.
If you found my OP unclear, I apologise, but stand by its content—I make it clear at the end that I think he could’ve apologised successfully 26 years later, but this wasn’t the solution. My post was originally motivated by finding the apology ultimately unsatisfactory (which I still do), and I remain angry with Bostrom for reasons I consider legitimate.
You literally listed the timeframe as a reason (among others) to reject both apologies.
Here are your words again:
and:
Perhaps your other points are valid. What I’m quibbling with is just having it both ways on whether a quick turnaround or long delay indicates an insincere apology (just based on the timeframe). You’ve claimed both in this thread, and I don’t think that’s fair.
Sure, I can see that. What I meant was the timeframe in context − 26 years later being the point at which someone threatened to dig things up. I think the apology could have succeeded, but owing to its content, it wasn’t.
This is a position that’s consistent with my original post, reading it back. 26 years does little to help Bostrom—why? Not because it’s a long time in itself, but because it’s clearly the point at which something outside happens—the threat of exposure.
While I think the short timeframe is a reason itself to consider the first apology insincere, the long timeframe isn’t, at least intrinsically. Perhaps I should have made that clearer, but I hope you’ll forgive me for not doing so. If you’re disagreeing with me in good faith, I appreciate that, but my position simply isn’t how you’ve characterised it. Contrary to what you’ve said, at no point do I claim that the timeframe is a reason to reject the later apology.
My view is: Bostrom’s statement was inadequate and it came 26 years later. I maintain the fact that the timeframe doesn’t help him, as the apology is so clearly motivated by the threat of bad PR surfacing 26 years later, but the timeframe itself doesn’t make it inadequate.
The content of Bostrom’s statement informs my position here, where he expects people to believe that he didn’t endorse the position even then… I don’t need to explain this.
My view is not: Bostrom’s statement was inadequate purely because it came 26 years later.
In the case of the 26-year-later apology, the timeframe is salient to me because it represents the point at which Bostrom realised the risk that he might be exposed.
This compromises how seriously I take the apology.
If you found my OP unclear, I apologise, but stand by its content—I make it clear at the end that I think he could’ve apologised successfully 26 years later, but this wasn’t the solution. My post was originally motivated by finding the apology ultimately unsatisfactory (which I still do), and I remain angry with Bostrom for reasons I consider legitimate.