It’s an uncomfortable truth about apologies. Forgiveness isn’t part of an automatic algorithm: Do bad, apologize, receive forgiveness As children, we’re taught this are the rules. But that script can be abused and often is by people who want to continue “doing bad”, trying to force forgiveness out of the person or people wronged. If an apology is viewed as currency, does this apology match up to the wrong that was done? So, that’s another way to look at apologies.

It’s an uncomfortable truth about apologies. Forgiveness isn’t part of an automatic algorithm:

Do bad,
apologize,
receive forgiveness

As children, we’re taught this are the rules.

But that script can be abused and often is by people who want to continue “doing bad”, trying to force forgiveness out of the person or people wronged.

If an apology is viewed as currency, does this apology match up to the wrong that was done?

So, that’s another way to look at apologies.

I think this apology was enough in this case.
But let’s say someone wrote a book about genocide that inspired thousands of people to commit crimes and murders.

Author stands up and says: “I am ashamed of what I wrote and I apologize”.

That’s why I bring up “doesn’t have to accept”. Not for this case but in case someone lifts what Beta O’Rourke says and uses it in a situation where it doesn’t fit.

But in this case, it was the right response.

—–

No. I’m taking about the currency of an apology.

This is a good and correct transaction following the pattern:

Do bad.
Apologize.
Receive forgiveness.

——

I don’t much remember what Franken did – I seem to remember pictures and then he was out, but I didn’t follow it closely.

At this point, with digging-up-past being a daily norm, knowing how to appropriately respond is crucial. I find Kavanaugh’s response to his own past to be a very wrong approach and is taking down a lot of people with him who are walking shoulder-to-shoulder.

O’Rourke responded correctly.

====

I’m generalizing the world of apologies because I’m working through my own thoughts about the whole thing, not just these cases.

I can remember doing wrong as a kid, apologizing and getting back “Your sorry isn’t good enough”. That left me confused. Puzzled me.

I knew the formula:
Do bad, if caught, apologize, get forgiven. All automatic.

But it wasn’t always automatic. Why wasn’t it? So, it’s just something that always fascinated me since.

======

It’s probably wrong of me to use O’Rourke’s situation as “test case” for my own algorithms, perhaps it’s disrespectful in some way, or gives the appearance of an inability to separate the trivial from the significant.

I know the difference for me but I don’t walk in everybody else’s shoes in all cases, so I continually test and refine the parameters for my social algorithms as I learn.

=====

As a kid, I thought I understood the rules: If you do wrong and get caught, apologize and receive forgiveness. But then I’d get baffled when I’d hear, “But your sorry wasn’t good enough”. I didn’t yet understand – I thought I was following the rules. So, through the years, I’ve learned and continue to. Communication is transactional, what I think isn’t what another person thinks, the value of words is contextual, stuff like that.

=====

 

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


5 × five =

Leave a Reply