3 ms·

I still don't see why an organization should not apologise for its own policy. Post-communist states did apologise for things they did decades before while bei

I still don't see why an organization should not apologise for its own policy. Post-communist states did apologise for things they did decades before while being very different regimes. And that was a good thing; stubborness would be a disaster there, you can't move forward unless you repent. If you think of it, Marujuana criminalization took a toll of human lives comparable to GULAG.

dllthomas 12y ago
To paraphrase OED, an apology is an expression of regret for something one has done wrong. An organization cannot experience regret, so demanding an apology from the organization is guaranteed to be empty. An apology from members of the organization may well be meaningful, but the current members of the organization have not done wrong (at least, no wrong that caused the initial passing of the 1937 act). Basing your voting on whether your politicians are improving drug policy and/or have committed to do so on the future is totally reasonable. Basing your voting on your demand for an inherently empty ritual seems... not. edited to add: Note that a Truth & Reconciliation type process is an entirely different thing - exposing and acknowledging the truth can be important and allow healing in ways that have no particular relationship to emotions fictionally experienced by the organization.
- vegedor 12y ago
  I can regret, i.e. feel sorry for, what I didn't cause. I can also apologize in defense of someone else. You English shouldn't constantly use Greek words if you don't understand them * ;) In that sense, speeches in senate are exactly that, even before laws are put in action. Sadly, my opinion about the credibility can't be written here in good faith. *) https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apology#Etymology https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apology#Etymology
  - dllthomas 12y ago
    An etymology is not a word's "true meaning". Given the wink, you may well know this, though it could be that the gibe was intended in jest but the broader import was not so I felt it necessary to make it explicit. A word derived from another language can (and often does) acquire an entirely different meaning in its new environment. You can certainly regret what you did not cause. You can express sympathy for what you did not cause. I think an apology is necessarily an expression of regret for something you had a role in, however. The word "sorry" expresses regret, but that regret is only part of an apology when there is some level of culpability. Apologizing on behalf of someone you've been associating with for a long while is regret that your impact did not lead to better behavior from them. Apologizing on behalf of someone you've just met seems weird to me. Apologizing for things done before you were born, even weirder. As I've said elsewhere, that doesn't mean I have a strong opposition to people doing or saying weird things - I just think we should try and be clear in our thinking.
    - musername 12y ago
      Does newspeak have different meaning to you, than it used to, too?
      - dllthomas 12y ago
        I'm sorry? Are you saying that unless we pretend that words actually mean what they meant in other languages centuries ago, we're redefining words to control thought and political discourse?
        vegedor 12y ago
        No, I'm hinting at the potential corruption of language, if not used properly. Sorry for the sarcasm. >An etymology is not a word's "true meaning". Anyway, it's still a good indicator. >Given the wink, you may well know this Indeed, I have no hope of convincing the MW editors here, or correcting what seems to be >A word derived from another language can (and often does) acquire an entirely different meaning in its new environment. It's not derived. It is the same word given a second meaning. Languages aren't separate entities, they are intertwined and defined by the speakers. In that sense you are right, a word should mean whatever it is intended to mean. Still, it's a loanword and that implies a certain responsibility for the user, as with any loan. I don't see any argument for the necessity of transforming the meaning. I think the transformation is a mutation, coming from ignorant usage and that goes against my grain. Simplification might have merit, but I'm all for generalization. >You can certainly regret what you did not cause. You can express sympathy for what you did not cause. I think an apology is necessarily an expression of regret for something you had a role in, however. The word "sorry" expresses regret, but that regret is only part of an apology when there is some level of culpability. Apologizing on behalf of someone you've been associating with for a long while is regret that your impact did not lead to better behavior from them. Apologizing on behalf of someone you've just met seems weird to me. Apologizing for things done before you were born, even weirder. What's the reverse of the euphemism treadmill? Apology is suffering it. A proper apology would explain all the reasons for the laws, which are by the way still in action. The focus shouldn't be on acknowledgment, but on correcting the understanding of the situation, to ease any confusion. To my understanding >As I've said elsewhere, that doesn't mean I have a strong opposition to people doing or saying weird things - I just think we should try and be clear in our thinking. Exactly. Therefore words heavily rely on context and the context here was clear. The GGGP demanded an excuse, a justification or most importantly a clear explanation as to why the law has changed. Obviously though, that couldn't be expected, because there is no clear situation, on the federal level it's still illegal, there was no change. That, I think, really requires an explanation. That is a double standard, don't you see a new-speak reference in this?

dllthomas 12y ago

To paraphrase OED, an apology is an expression of regret for something one has done wrong. An organization cannot experience regret, so demanding an apology from the organization is guaranteed to be empty. An apology from members of the organization may well be meaningful, but the current members of the organization have not done wrong (at least, no wrong that caused the initial passing of the 1937 act). Basing your voting on whether your politicians are improving drug policy and/or have committed to do so on the future is totally reasonable. Basing your voting on your demand for an inherently empty ritual seems... not. edited to add: Note that a Truth & Reconciliation type process is an entirely different thing - exposing and acknowledging the truth can be important and allow healing in ways that have no particular relationship to emotions fictionally experienced by the organization.

vegedor 12y ago
I can regret, i.e. feel sorry for, what I didn't cause. I can also apologize in defense of someone else. You English shouldn't constantly use Greek words if you don't understand them * ;) In that sense, speeches in senate are exactly that, even before laws are put in action. Sadly, my opinion about the credibility can't be written here in good faith. *) https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apology#Etymology https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/apology#Etymology
- dllthomas 12y ago
  An etymology is not a word's "true meaning". Given the wink, you may well know this, though it could be that the gibe was intended in jest but the broader import was not so I felt it necessary to make it explicit. A word derived from another language can (and often does) acquire an entirely different meaning in its new environment. You can certainly regret what you did not cause. You can express sympathy for what you did not cause. I think an apology is necessarily an expression of regret for something you had a role in, however. The word "sorry" expresses regret, but that regret is only part of an apology when there is some level of culpability. Apologizing on behalf of someone you've been associating with for a long while is regret that your impact did not lead to better behavior from them. Apologizing on behalf of someone you've just met seems weird to me. Apologizing for things done before you were born, even weirder. As I've said elsewhere, that doesn't mean I have a strong opposition to people doing or saying weird things - I just think we should try and be clear in our thinking.
  - musername 12y ago
    Does newspeak have different meaning to you, than it used to, too?
    - dllthomas 12y ago
      I'm sorry? Are you saying that unless we pretend that words actually mean what they meant in other languages centuries ago, we're redefining words to control thought and political discourse?
      - vegedor 12y ago
        No, I'm hinting at the potential corruption of language, if not used properly. Sorry for the sarcasm. >An etymology is not a word's "true meaning". Anyway, it's still a good indicator. >Given the wink, you may well know this Indeed, I have no hope of convincing the MW editors here, or correcting what seems to be >A word derived from another language can (and often does) acquire an entirely different meaning in its new environment. It's not derived. It is the same word given a second meaning. Languages aren't separate entities, they are intertwined and defined by the speakers. In that sense you are right, a word should mean whatever it is intended to mean. Still, it's a loanword and that implies a certain responsibility for the user, as with any loan. I don't see any argument for the necessity of transforming the meaning. I think the transformation is a mutation, coming from ignorant usage and that goes against my grain. Simplification might have merit, but I'm all for generalization. >You can certainly regret what you did not cause. You can express sympathy for what you did not cause. I think an apology is necessarily an expression of regret for something you had a role in, however. The word "sorry" expresses regret, but that regret is only part of an apology when there is some level of culpability. Apologizing on behalf of someone you've been associating with for a long while is regret that your impact did not lead to better behavior from them. Apologizing on behalf of someone you've just met seems weird to me. Apologizing for things done before you were born, even weirder. What's the reverse of the euphemism treadmill? Apology is suffering it. A proper apology would explain all the reasons for the laws, which are by the way still in action. The focus shouldn't be on acknowledgment, but on correcting the understanding of the situation, to ease any confusion. To my understanding >As I've said elsewhere, that doesn't mean I have a strong opposition to people doing or saying weird things - I just think we should try and be clear in our thinking. Exactly. Therefore words heavily rely on context and the context here was clear. The GGGP demanded an excuse, a justification or most importantly a clear explanation as to why the law has changed. Obviously though, that couldn't be expected, because there is no clear situation, on the federal level it's still illegal, there was no change. That, I think, really requires an explanation. That is a double standard, don't you see a new-speak reference in this?