3 ms·

I guess my problem with this (and with the idea of the "right way" to give an apology in general) is, what if you weren't the bad guy unequivocally? Say someon

I guess my problem with this (and with the idea of the "right way" to give an apology in general) is, what if you weren't the bad guy unequivocally? Say someone punches me and out of anger I stab him. I apologize for stabbing him. But I'm not going to say I was the bad guy unequivocally, because I wasn't. He punched me and he punched first. He's at least, like, 10% the bad guy. That doesn't mean my apology for stabbing him is insincere. I regret that part 100%. But it's not wrong for me to say "I still think he shouldn't have punched me" because otherwise it's like I'm admitting to stabbing him for no reason, which isn't true. I get that one goal of an apology is to make amends to people who have been hurt/offended. Those people understandably want to see the apologizer grovel without hesitation. But humans have both a head and a heart, so shouldn't being accurate in one's apology be an equally important goal? Not taking a side here either way. Just something I've noticed about the social expectations around apologies in general.

mynameisvlad 5y ago
“I apologize for stabbing them.” Period. End of sentence. Not “I apologize for stabbing them BUT they started it” The latter is just trying to justify and excuse the bad behavior and save face. A true apology shows remorse and that’s it.
- stale2002 5y ago
  > The latter is just trying to justify and excuse the bad behavior and save face Ok, but in the example that was given, it does justify it, a little bit. It doesn't justify it completely, but I would absolutely have more empathy for someone who stabbed someone out of some amount of self defense, than I would for someone who stabbed someone for no reason. Do you really believe, that in the stabbing example, someone who stabs someone, for literally no reason at all, is exactly the same as someone who did it, in response to being assaulted first?
  - mynameisvlad 5y ago
    If your goal is to apologize, you don’t need to justify your actions. That’s what people are criticizing.
    - stale2002 5y ago
      So then you agree or disagree, in the specific example, of someone responding in self defense, as opposed to stabbing someone for no reason? You think these 2 actions are the same, or is it that 1 situation is probably not as bad?
      - mynameisvlad 5y ago
        This is not an argument in good faith and you know it. We aren't talking about these hypothetical situations and my opinions on them, we're talking about what makes an apology an apology. Kindly take your sealioning elsewhere.
        stale2002 5y ago
        > we're talking about what makes an apology an apology. Ok, and in the situation of the stabbing/assault, you really think it would be unreasonable for someone to point out that they got attacked first? That does not seem unreasonable. If someone got attacked, and then responded with too much force, it would still be reasonable to point out that someone got attacked first, while also saying that attacking back with too much force was bad. In the case of someone getting attacked first, it is both OK to point that out, and also say that the response was over the top. If you disagree then you are basically saying that attacking someone unprovoked is equivalently bad as to attacking someone in response to an attack. And I am not sure why you don't recognize the importance of also pointing out that an attack was in response to another attack. That seems pretty important to point out. It is pretty reasonable to both recognize that something went too far, while also explaining that there was a cause to it, and that it was in response to another attack.
- formerly_proven 5y ago
  Bingo, apologizing and then going "but <they deserved it / totally provoked me / blah blah blah>" is anything but an apology, it's just a cheap attempt at winning in the court of public opinion: "Yeah I was wrong but I was right, actually" is just a confession with some faux remorse veneer and a rationalization stapled to it.
- howolduis 5y ago
  what if they deny that they started it?

mynameisvlad 5y ago

“I apologize for stabbing them.” Period. End of sentence. Not “I apologize for stabbing them BUT they started it” The latter is just trying to justify and excuse the bad behavior and save face. A true apology shows remorse and that’s it.

stale2002 5y ago
> The latter is just trying to justify and excuse the bad behavior and save face Ok, but in the example that was given, it does justify it, a little bit. It doesn't justify it completely, but I would absolutely have more empathy for someone who stabbed someone out of some amount of self defense, than I would for someone who stabbed someone for no reason. Do you really believe, that in the stabbing example, someone who stabs someone, for literally no reason at all, is exactly the same as someone who did it, in response to being assaulted first?
- mynameisvlad 5y ago
  If your goal is to apologize, you don’t need to justify your actions. That’s what people are criticizing.
  - stale2002 5y ago
    So then you agree or disagree, in the specific example, of someone responding in self defense, as opposed to stabbing someone for no reason? You think these 2 actions are the same, or is it that 1 situation is probably not as bad?
    - mynameisvlad 5y ago
      This is not an argument in good faith and you know it. We aren't talking about these hypothetical situations and my opinions on them, we're talking about what makes an apology an apology. Kindly take your sealioning elsewhere.
      - stale2002 5y ago
        > we're talking about what makes an apology an apology. Ok, and in the situation of the stabbing/assault, you really think it would be unreasonable for someone to point out that they got attacked first? That does not seem unreasonable. If someone got attacked, and then responded with too much force, it would still be reasonable to point out that someone got attacked first, while also saying that attacking back with too much force was bad. In the case of someone getting attacked first, it is both OK to point that out, and also say that the response was over the top. If you disagree then you are basically saying that attacking someone unprovoked is equivalently bad as to attacking someone in response to an attack. And I am not sure why you don't recognize the importance of also pointing out that an attack was in response to another attack. That seems pretty important to point out. It is pretty reasonable to both recognize that something went too far, while also explaining that there was a cause to it, and that it was in response to another attack.
formerly_proven 5y ago
Bingo, apologizing and then going "but <they deserved it / totally provoked me / blah blah blah>" is anything but an apology, it's just a cheap attempt at winning in the court of public opinion: "Yeah I was wrong but I was right, actually" is just a confession with some faux remorse veneer and a rationalization stapled to it.
howolduis 5y ago
what if they deny that they started it?