That’s true, and it’s something that i didn’t really address in my previous post.
But while there is always going to be a grey area in the middle somewhere, surely most people can agree that some things are always bad enough to require a proper apology, and some things are always trivial enough that people need to be told to get a life if they take offence.
I’m having trouble seeing where the disagreement is here. blinkingblinking admitted that his/her non-apology was a sham; that s/he didn’t really feel bad, wasn’t really sorry, and thought the people who were offended were over-sensitive wankers.
If that’s the message a person wants to convey, the “conditional apology” is the way to go. Of course, you could also say, “I’m not sorry and I think the people who were offended are over-sensitive wankers.” But sometimes that isn’t acceptable. Not every battle in life is worth fighting. It isn’t worth losing your job over inane comments about a cricket team.
The problem is when somebody who has done something seriously wrong offers a conditional apology and then acts as if they’re off the hook. The comment by Boisclair is grossly offensive, not just to gays but to anybody who can’t have kids or just doesn’t have kids. (And who therefore isn’t qualified to be a politician? What a prick.)
By offering a conditional non-apology, he makes it clear that he feels like blinkingblinking–he’s right, he’s not sorry for and isn’t retracting what he said, and if we don’t like it, we’re a bunch of wankers.
So fuck him.
I apologise if anyone feels offended at the lack of content in this post.
Thankyou. That is pretty much what I was going to write. But as I said I have done all this before - last year at work. I could not be bothered doing it again. I actually sent a newsstory to my co-wokers which was an Australian commentator complaining about the arrogance of the Australian cricket team.
I do not understand. I am fairly sure I did not use the word “honesty” in any of my posts. So how is it that I ‘used “honesty” to defend being an asshole? You sound just like the jerks who got ‘offended’ about me calling the Aus Cricket team arrogant.
As I explained before in fairly clear English- I think that usuage of the word "sorry’ is odd. Becuase I only use it when I am apologizing for my mistake. I understand that lots of people use “I am sorry” to express sympathy about dead relatives,cats.car engines etc. I do not. I am not making an aritrary definition of a word.
Well, for example, there’s this comment you made about not apologizing for calling somebody a stupid asshole:
That pretty clearly implies that you believe that as long as a grossly insulting remark honestly expresses what somebody really thinks, they don’t need to apologize for making the grossly insulting remark.
And that definitely counts as “using ‘honesty’ to defend being an asshole”.
I can’t see the problem with the good old fake sorry. It is part of the grease that makes the social engine work.
I nudge you in accidently in the supermarket. I say sorry and we both move on. I’m not ACTUALLY sorry, you were in my way! My “sorry” is a societal niciety.
I say “ALL Aussies cricketers are wankers”. You are an Aussie. I say “Ooops! Sorry mate, I’m sure some of them are ok”
I make a swooping statment about Americans based on their choice of Presidents and you are American. I say "Oooops. Sorry! I didn’t mean you!
Mid-arguement I tell my brother I hate him. Later I say “Sorry, I didn’t mean it”.
The sorry is often as sincere as the circumstance that it rose from BUT the sorry is important. We are moving from a society that believes “sorry” is important to one that believes it is not.
You may not like fake sorries. Avoiding them may protect your personal diginity…three cheers for you. But even a fake apology lets people know you have an awareness of their feelings.
I would rather have “fake” people who think of others around me then genuine people who can’t say sorry.
Thinking about how you veiw yourself before how you treat others just makes you a wanker.
That’s my belief, too: the idea that the apology is a sacred rite, that apologizing involves prostrating yourself before the world, is weird to me.
Yes, sometimes that’s what an apology does. If I lose my temper and say something deeply cruel to a coworker, then I need to go to that coworker, explain that what I did was wrong, that I am truly repetant, and that I’ll do what they need me to do to make the situation better. But that’s only one type of apology.
There’s also the apology for inadvertant harm caused. I might tell a joke that involves somoene plunging off a skyscraper to his death, only to find out that a listener’s husband committed suicide last week by jumping off a building. In this case, I need to give a huge, deeply felt apology, and then shut up about it, even though I had no way of knowing that my actions were going to hurt the friend.
There’s also the apology for slight slights. I might begin speaking in a converation at the same time as someone else; if I’ve been speaking more than them, I might smile, say “sorry, go on,” and let them talk. No sackcloth or ashes are involved; no sacred rite is undertaken.
And there’s one type of conditional apology that I think is appropriate. I’m joking around with someone, teasing banter, but I’m feeling hungry and cranky. Later, after I’ve eaten, I think back to the teasing, and wonder whether I crossed the line between teasing and insulting. So I say, “Hey, I’m sorry if I was being cranky earlier.” If I wasn’t, the person can tell me, and all’s good; if I was, then they can know that I regret having been cranky and insulting, and they won’t resent me.
The key is that in these cases, I’m not a great judge of my own behavior, and so my conditional apology allows someone else to give me feedback.
Daniel
Thanks, you got there before I did. Maybe blinkingblinking didn’t use the word “honesty”, but it’s disingenuous of him to imply he wasn’t appealing to the notion as a defense for being an asshole.
From what I remember of my childhood, I don’t think a refusal to say “sorry” is so much weird as just incredibly childish. Children do that - they get mad and refuse to apologize for something they did on the basis of not being sorry. I’m aware that some adults are the same way, but it’s depressing to see how many there are.
I’m starting to think our society puts way too much emphasis on being true to yourself. New rule: Don’t be true to yourself. Lie about your feelings and repress them in order to fit in socially. It’s called “being an adult.”
How about this rule for being an adult - find a reason you are truly sorry, and apologize for that. If you can’t honestly find any fault with any part of your conduct, don’t apologize.
That’s right. You should never inflict your personality on anyone.
Conform. Confoooooorm! Life CAN be a 50’s educational short if we try hard enough.
Planning to get yourself one of them-there… whatchacallit… lavender marriages, Exy? 
I kid. Because I think you kid as well.
I like to do this in two steps. “Hey, was I being cranky before?” (if no: ) “Okay, cool. I was just joking.” (if yes: ) “Oh, okay. I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to be a jerk.”
Actually, I think that our society’s cultish insistence that all that matters is being “true to yourself” is ridiculous, and I think people do need to be encouraged to repress their own feelings a little bit. But I guess that makes me a sheep, right? I think there’s something to be said for not being deliberately antagonistic toward others. I know the mantra of selfishness is appealing, but that doesn’t make it necessarily good for society. But hey, what does the discomfort of others matter when it gets in the way of my short-term happiness?
Feel free to continue with your strawman arguments, though, CandidGamera. If you suddenly started offering thoughtful, reasoned arguments instead of this mindless garbage, I wouldn’t know what to think.
'Tis not a strawman. Methinks your bolded bit is, though. There is a difference between deliberately antagonizing someone; and freely expressing one’s thoughts, without regard to whether they are antagonistic or not.
To my mind, it’s directly analogous to gay marriage. People should be free to love whom they choose and express that love. People should also be free to think what they choose and express those thoughts. Conformity is neither a negative nor a positive. Why should those who think differently be punished by enforced silence, while those in step with the mainstream can speak their minds?
This is why we have that pesky old First Amendment.
It’s called “politeness.” Or “civilization.”
The First Amendment deals only with government action, as I refuse to even consider you’re not aware because it’s far too depressing.
And it’s true: a little repression of our natural urges is what keeps our society functioning. Not in the Pit, particularly, but in the rest of our daily interactions with other civilized people. I might really have to go, a perfectly natural urge, but I refrain from dropping a dookie in the middle of Zellers because that’s proper (not to mention sanitary) behaviour.
“‘Oh, I’m sorry, the bank cannot accept your cheque without proper identification. You’ll have to come back.’ ‘NO! NO NO NO NO NO!’ And then the teller starts to regress: ‘I waaaaaaant you to get out of the baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaank!’ The manager has to come out: ‘Stop this, both of you, right now!’ And sends you to the corner with your chequebook: ‘Aaaah, you’re a stupidhead. This is you: nyaaaaaaaaah.’” - Elvira Kurt
That is what it protects. The reason we have it is because the founding fathers believed people had a right to speak their mind.
Right. And I was addressing blinkingblinking when he argued that it was only right to call the president an asshole in front of his daughters.
Wow, that almost has something to with the original problem. Try hard enough, and next time you may actually be able to draw a valid comparison!
What’s your point? Of course they should. No one claimed otherwise.
What the fuck are you talking about? The question is whether you should apologize after insulting someone. What does this have to do with “enforced silence”? Who is trying to enforce anything here?
I’ll keep that in mind next time I’m lobbying for a law to prevent people from insulting others without apologizing afterwards. Until then, it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion at hand.
Stop bothering me with your kneejerk “OMG UR A CONFORMIST SHEEP” crap and try to figure out what’s being discussed here. Jesus Christ, you’re a fucking idiot.
I was responding to the general sweeping rule you proposed as a coda to your response to LHoD, actually. Quoted again in case you’re confused :
Again, I branched off of the conversation to address your little rule proposition:
I beg to differ:
Why, that’d be you, Exy:
I don’t think you’re a conformist sheep. I think you’re curmudgeonly old Edith Carrass, 80 year old retired English teacher, in Sarasota, Florida, always complaining about how the kids these days have no respect, and can’t write a sentence worth a damn, either! Hopefully the repetition will help you catch up.
Oh, look! You’re right! I used one humorous exaggeration to make my point! Therefore, my entire point is invalid!
You’re being incredibly obnoxious here, and you’re trying to somehow magically prove that I mean something that I claim not to mean. Let’s address your pathetic little efforts, though.
There’s no contradiction at all here. People should not be forced by the government to be polite (as you implied I want the government to do - an implication that you owe me an apology for.) People should not be forced by anyone to be polite, unless they’re children. Nevertheless, they should choose to be polite. It’s called, as matt_mcl pointed out, “civilization”.
Again, where’s the contradiction? Where have I called for “enforced silence”?
Nope. But let’s play that game. I think you are throwing a tantrum based upon my joking response to what I think is a legitimate problem in society - the notion that “being honest” and “expressing yourself” are the most important virtues. I think people often do a little too much expressing themselves. I think you are throwing that tantrum because you have some serious problem with authority figures and therefore become resentful at the very notion of doing anything besides satisfying ones own immediate needs. I think you made completely ridiculous references to the First Amendment because you have zero understanding of what “freedom of speech” refers to, and therefore you think it means “the right to say whatever you like without ever facing any consequences for it.” Which is an argument I’ve heard before, it’s true, but that was when I was in third grade. I think you lack even the most elementary ability to read and understand what you’re reading, which is why you’re throwing this tantrum. I think you most likely are mentally retarded as a result of long-term syphilis and severe fetal alcohol syndrome, and this explains your utter incomprehension of the topic under discussion. Finally, I think you should take what I said to heart and shut up, because you’re not only pissing me off but showing what an ignorant idiot you are (seriously, you bring up the goddamn Bill of Rights? Do you even know what it is?)
At this point, you owe me an apology for my having to deal with your mind-melting stupidity. You owe me an apology for implying that I’m calling for government efforts to enforce politeness. Frankly, I think you need to apologize to the rest of the world for existing. But then, I have never been real great at suffering fools.