Mistakes are a part of life. I've made them; you've made them; even Gandhi made them. We've all said and done things we haven't been proud about, wished these moments never took place, and often promised ourselves we'd learn from such experiences so we didn't repeat them. When another is hurt by our mishandling of a situation, it's common to make amends by apologizing. While some may be more hard-headed than others when it comes to admitting mistakes and apologizing for them, I think a large majority of people whom aren't in serious denial know when they've done wrong and when it's time to offer a sincere apology for this wrongdoing. So long as the same mistakes aren't being committed, leading to the same apologies, a sincere apology can be quite a helpful tool in calming a situation, regaining another's trust, and helping progress the relationship.
Apologies aren't always sincere, however, and it's during these very instances when I have to wonder why a large segment of the population still demands an individual to provide a phony apology for his or her wrongdoing. This is especially the case in politics. I receive between five and ten petitions every week demanding a politician to apologize for his or her offensive comments. Nine out of ten times, the politician didn't misspeak and wasn't taken out of context. In other words, no matter how offensive the comment may have been, the person meant what they said, so what will a phony apology actually accomplish? It obviously won't be sincere; it won't prove their beliefs have suddenly changed; it won't provide offended individuals any sort of comfort; and it may mislead the gullible (or his/her supporters) that he/she's a decent person, taking the high road, and showing respect.
Most phony apologies I've heard start with these words: "If I offended anybody with my remarks, I'm sorry; that wasn't my intent."
I'm sorry, but that's not an apology. The so-called apologizer isn't admitting their comments were wrong, and that's the big problem. When Ben Carson blames the victims of the Roseburg, Oregon mass shooting and doesn't offer a sincere apology for his offensive comments, it's largely due to the fact he believes he's right, and there can be no compromising on that. In his mind, he's likely thinking, "Why should I apologize for being right? I guess I have to offer some sort of apology for image purposes, but I'm not going to go all out and truly apologize, because I was right; that's all there is to it."
So why demand Ben Carson and others to offer phony apologies to the public? All that does is provide them an opportunity to put the issue behind them and steady their image in the process. If such a person wants to offer a heartfelt apology, and back it up with action, then that's perfectly fine. However, if that's not the case, I believe these politicians should continue to have to eat their own words, own up to the offensive comments they've made, and not be allowed to move past them until they've proven beyond the shadow of a doubt they're sincere in their apologies. Until then, they can keep their phony apologies to themselves.
Apologies aren't always sincere, however, and it's during these very instances when I have to wonder why a large segment of the population still demands an individual to provide a phony apology for his or her wrongdoing. This is especially the case in politics. I receive between five and ten petitions every week demanding a politician to apologize for his or her offensive comments. Nine out of ten times, the politician didn't misspeak and wasn't taken out of context. In other words, no matter how offensive the comment may have been, the person meant what they said, so what will a phony apology actually accomplish? It obviously won't be sincere; it won't prove their beliefs have suddenly changed; it won't provide offended individuals any sort of comfort; and it may mislead the gullible (or his/her supporters) that he/she's a decent person, taking the high road, and showing respect.
Most phony apologies I've heard start with these words: "If I offended anybody with my remarks, I'm sorry; that wasn't my intent."
I'm sorry, but that's not an apology. The so-called apologizer isn't admitting their comments were wrong, and that's the big problem. When Ben Carson blames the victims of the Roseburg, Oregon mass shooting and doesn't offer a sincere apology for his offensive comments, it's largely due to the fact he believes he's right, and there can be no compromising on that. In his mind, he's likely thinking, "Why should I apologize for being right? I guess I have to offer some sort of apology for image purposes, but I'm not going to go all out and truly apologize, because I was right; that's all there is to it."
So why demand Ben Carson and others to offer phony apologies to the public? All that does is provide them an opportunity to put the issue behind them and steady their image in the process. If such a person wants to offer a heartfelt apology, and back it up with action, then that's perfectly fine. However, if that's not the case, I believe these politicians should continue to have to eat their own words, own up to the offensive comments they've made, and not be allowed to move past them until they've proven beyond the shadow of a doubt they're sincere in their apologies. Until then, they can keep their phony apologies to themselves.
Comments
Post a Comment