posted
A sister in my ward said something in passing to no one in particular that got back to another sister. Of course, it got back to her telephone style and was inflated into something bigger than it ever should have been. The offended sister posted about it on Facebook, no names named, and got all kinds of support and ego strokes and pats on the back. The original sister was very hurt, even though her name wasn't named. She called the offended sister, explained what had really been said and what she meant by it, and apologized profusely. The offended sister was furious, said some unkind things in return, and ended the call. Offended sister eventually called her back, apologized herself, and hopefully everything is mended. They're both lovely people and it would be a shame if they remained at odds with one another.
You know what would have fixed it? If the offended sister had called the other sister before anything else and asked her why she said what she had. It would have smoothed it all over before anyone else ever heard about it.
The same would have fixed the situation in the article. If the offended sister had called the sister with the baby and cleared things up, no drama would have been stirred up. But now other sisters are probably gossiping and drawing lines and what should have been a quickly-resolved misunderstanding between 2 or maybe 3 women has potentially divided a relief society.
But then I think some women sniff drama out and take it where they can get it, and some love to be the victim.
posted
I apologized recently to an old woman who is very difficult to deal with. I finally realized that though I felt like I hadn't done anything (for one thing she simply doesn't understand half the stuff I say, because of a stroke, and very deeply set ways), that perhaps someone like Christ might've done differently than me,perhaps with a smile on his face, he wouldn't have let the situation get to him or get as estranged, and could've handled her in a much better way than I did... ultimately though I felt "justified" with or without an apology, I felt liberated in knowing Christ. It helped me mend the relationship when I explained to her that I really wished I could be the sort of person she expected me to be and still be happy with myself--and though I cannot do that now, I am willing to apologize for not being perfect as Christ--able to handle all situations with perfection.
posted
I can always apologize for saying something that was taken the wrong way. I certainly didn't mean for it to be taken that way. And using charity, I can usually understand why someone took it the wrong way. So I apologize.
It doesn't really matter to me if the other person SHOULD have taken it differently - they didn't. It was my thing I said - one would think I was sort of invested in actually having the message recieved accurately - obviously that didn't work - so I apologize and try again.
Sometimes it works, sometimes the person is just one of those people who get offended, and would have found something else to be offended by that day if I hadn't come along. But it really costs me nothing to apologize, and my apology is always sincere.
Posts: 2105 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've been in a variation of this situation. A nice, neutral "apology" would be good. Talking might not be the way to get through to her. A letter could work when people are talking past one another. It's what I did. I think I used the word "apologize", but I only apologized that she had felt angry or that she judged my motives to be selfish, for that had ot bern my intention. I then explained the situation; what she hadn't wanted to hear when we'd been talking at each other.
Begin rant. Ugh. One of many reasons I despise blogs and social networks--people's class and professionalism gets shunted aside by poor and unprofessional decisions, and knee-jerk reactions for all the world to see; where it has no business to be. It's called discretion--please look into it. /End rant
Posts: 3862 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if this is a semantic issue and if I think about this through my language. We also have too words, But used a bit differently.
You say sorry when you accidentally push someone on a line. (anteeksi)
We say I am sorry, when someone has hurt their feelings by something you have said, meaning you feel bad that the other person feels bad, but it doesn't mean you feel necessarily any responsibility for the persons feelings or take any blame on you. (what you literally say is different, and the meaning is I feel bad) (olen pahoillani)
We say I apologize when you feel you have done something and take the responsibility for it. You use the same word as in sorry when you push someone. and literally you mean I ask for forgiveness. (Pyydän anteeksi) (Forgiveness =anteeksianto).
I think Crowgirl is talking about the second I am sorry. I think it is important to acknowledge someone is upset and we can feel sorry for that and say it. It can be a genuine feeling even though it doesn't have anything to do with whose fault is what - it's a way of showing empathy. I wouldn't say "I am sorry you got upset" or "I am sorry things turned that way" are empty. They can be full of feeling and should be accepted as such even if the person is unwilling to take responsibility (which may or may not be his to take)
Posts: 800 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: Begin rant. Ugh. One of many reasons I despise blogs and social networks--people's class and professionalism gets shunted aside by poor and unprofessional decisions, and knee-jerk reactions for all the world to see; where it has no business to be.
Agreed!
As for empty apologies, I think it is the sincerity more than the words (making written communication tricky). Though there is a famous one in my husband's family that makes me want to : "I'm sorry you're choosing to feel that way." Usually said after they have said or done something particularly rude or selfish.
Posts: 4324 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a problem when you apologize on behalf of people that aren't you. Even if you they are officially under your command. It is OK to say "This will never happen again!" if you are personally able to ensure that. But how is President Bush supposed to ensure that grunts on the ground aren't going to humiliate people who are trying to kill them, and who have killed their pals?
I remember that scenario, and my reaction was "There's a frickin' WAR going on! People are killing each other. The enemy is torturing and killing prisoners and civilians, and you're worried about our soldiers building human pyramids and making the prisoners wear female clothing?!?"
I would be fine with him saying we will emphasize our policy against this king of thing, and after the war we will investigate this issue. But right now, let's use our resources to win the war.
The problem is he can't guarantee it won't happen again. It wasn't really his fault in the first place. And the resources needed to "launch an investigation to discover if these crimes indicate a larger pattern of prisoner abuse" and "insist that protections be implemented so that this will never happen again" could better be used winning the war, in my opinion.
I have had way too much experience giving apologies. Usually due to my total cluelessness in certain areas. There are several things I have learned from this.
First, most of the time, my offendees were not very worried about the fact that I offended them. They are used to being offended. The issue is, they wanted me to fix it and arrange to never offend them in that way again. If I did that, they often became better friends, and respected me more than before. Sure maybe they couldn't trust me not to be clueless and offend them in other ways, but they COULD trust me to make it right.
Second, when I promise it won't happen again, I had better be able to deliver on that promise. If it does happen again, or even if they only THINK it happened again, even if it isn't my fault and I had no way of avoiding it, there will be a credibility problem.
Posts: 460 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
My very existence is offensive to some. So apologizing for it is about all I can do. I'm certain that I won't remedy the situation for all people, but again, I can still apologize.
Posts: 13016 | Registered: Oct 98
| IP: Logged |
posted
Roper, I'm going to quibble with you slightly, at risk of pulling things a bit too far off topic.
The Abu Ghraib prisoners were not wearing distinctive insignia visible from a difference, were not part of a proper chain of command, and did not themselves respect the laws and customs of war. That made them unlawful combatants, and it's not clear what protections unlawful combatants have under international convention. (During WWII, it was clear: None. The water has been muddied by postwar addendums and precedents.)
Seven years actually served is a pretty stiff sentence nowadays.
My recollection is that the commanding general received pretty stiff nonjudicial punishment that essentially ended her career in disgrace. I agree that the intermediate officer levels seem to have gotten off too light.
My conclusions? The treatment of the prisoners was shameful and unjustified. I much prefer George Washington's approach to prisoners of war, which was so favorable that fully a quarter of the Hessian troops captured by the Continental Army chose to stay in America and become American citizens.
But the Hessians were lawful combatants, and they pretty much abided by the laws and customs of war of the time.
Since many of the perpetrators of the Abu Ghraib abuses were in fact punished fairly severely, and since those who escaped punishment may have done so because of our noble tradition of a presumption of innocence, I'd argue the Bush administration did its duty under international law.
Posts: 1075 | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote: Or the (in)famous "I'm sorry for your loss.
You know, it's difficult enough to know what to say to someone who has experienced a loss without adding "I'm sorry for your loss" to the list of things we must avoid saying to them. What's left if we remove that?
Posts: 3369 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if it's because I'm such a pathetic liar, or if it's because I'm surrounded by very perceptive people, but in any case, the people I know can sniff out the faintest aroma of insincerity.
So, as if there were no other reason to not do so, I cannot apologize for anything unless I actually mean it lest my insincerity be used against me.
Posts: 3369 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jean Valjean is right, the Geneva conventions are not applicable to entities that do not subscribe to the rules of war.
That is not to say (and I'm sure JV would agree with this) that it is right and proper to descend to the level of wild animals in our treatment of illegal enemy combatants.
Posts: 3369 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: You know, it's difficult enough to know what to say to someone who has experienced a loss without adding "I'm sorry for your loss" to the list of things we must avoid saying to them. What's left if we remove that?
I think you'd agree it would be a double standard to hold Bush responsible for the behavior of the Abu Ghraib guards, but not credit him with responsibility for Secretary Rumsfield stepping up to enforce military law.
And there is a certain ambiguity in the requirement that the prisoners be treated as POWs unless there is "any doubt" of their status. I don't personally doubt that they were illegal combatants. I suspect the Bush administration didn't doubt that they were illegal combatants. And there is ambiguity over what constitutes a competent tribunal or how soon the prisoners must be brought before one. We do, in fact, have a military tribunal sitting at Guantanamo, and it has released a sizable fraction of the detainees there. Some of whom, ironically, have gone on to commit acts of terrorism after their release.
Though, as Randy rightly suggests, I believe a policy of harsh detainment is all wrong, regardless of the legalities. We should be doing our best to give the prisoners a good healthy dose of Stockholm syndrome instead.
Posts: 1075 | Registered: Apr 2011
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
: "I'm sorry you're choosing to feel that way." Usually said after they have said or done something particularly rude or selfish.
