'Oh, I see you have apologised. I still want more of your blood!!!' - Really?

[Parasondox]

Good morning to all the Escapist folks.

So, apologies. Looks like a lot of companies and individuals are making those lately. From silly mistaken errors, to outrageous comments that echos thoughts made in the 50's/60's... or 1800's. Everyone has the right to apologise for a mistake and in how ever time it takes, be forgiven for said mistake. Heck, sometimes forgiveness is something that may never happen, depending on a situation and the concept of "forgetting" rarely works when it comes to a huge problematic situation.

At this moment, lets talk about comments. Let's say someone says something really stupid and out of place but then apologises repeatedly for it and are open to change. Does just an apology make everything okay and dealt with or do they actually have to prove it more? Some reading this may think it's a silly question but really it isn't. Someone swears on live TV before the watershed (9pm in UK), the person apologises and low and behold, 'sorry isn't enough, we want them suspended or fired', viewer complaints are aired. A company corrects an error, comes out with a statement that was silly and not best explained, apologised repeatedly and said was opened to new ideas and thoughts from users and customers but somehow still labelled something they are not. The real story behind the error was hugely misrepresented and things got way out of hand. Just to make clear, I am not saying the comments made by many in the public eye are right or wrong, I only wish to find out and ask why certain things just can't be accepted once the actually situation has sorted. Admits to the mistake and takes full responsibility for it, says I'm sorry, accepts punishment of whatever manner to the situation and tries to start anew.

We want more blood though!!

Why do "we" want more? Isn't a full on apology and dedication to change worth enough for the situation to not grow into a full scale social witch hunt?

What do you think? Yes there is a flip side where the person apologises doesn't mean it at all and still carries on doing the same thing as before. That is someone abusing the situation and quite frankly, pardon my German, but taking the fucking piss.

 

[AnarchistFish]

Revenge mentality.

Same thing that drives the idiotic social desire for the reintroduction of capital punishment.

 

[JimB]

Isn't a full on apology and dedication to change worth enough for the situation to not grow into a full scale social witch hunt?

Though I think your use of terms like "witch hunt" and "want more blood" are troubling, I will concede that some people want punitive revenge. Others are tired of hearing empty apologies and hollow dedication to change, and want a visible attempt to actually set a wrong right.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Yes there is a flip side where the person apologises doesn't mean it at all and still carries on doing the same thing as before. That is someone abusing the situation and quite frankly, pardon my German, but taking the fucking piss.

Very much this.

A lot of the "apologies" aren't apologies. They fail to acknowledge wrong doing, and tend to be passive aggressive.

Usually these will include stuff like "sorry if", rather than "sorry than", and lots of stuff about how everyone that knows them thinks they are great people, so this time shouldn't count.

 

[Silvanus]

In a lot of cases, apologies are enough. I've been quite satisfied by Nintendo's updated response to the Tomodachi Life thing, for example; people made a fuss, and though they first defended themselves, they apologised afterwards and said they would act differently if another instalment gets produced. That apology should be accepted.

Essentially, an apology should be accepted, I think, if it represents genuine repentance and the damage done can be rectified (or nearly rectified).

On the other hand, there are apologies of the kind Thaluikhain described, or apologies that simply do not make up for the damage. The Liberal Democrats, here in the UK, have made a few apologies, but the damage done is too large in some respects. That apology does not earn them that trust back. People are under no obligation to accept an apology.

 

[Euryalus]

Everyone has the right to apologise for a mistake and in how ever time it takes, be forgiven for said mistake.

You don't have the right to be forgiven though. Don't get me wrong, forgiveness is a great thing. Every should learn to forgive if for no other reason than it's good for you not to carry any bitterness/resentment, but it isn't a right owed to any wrongdoer.

You're in for a bad time if you expect otherwise.

You do something wrong? You're gonna have to carry it.

OT: To answer your original question though, I think the others said it well. There's just a general lack of belief in the sincerity of a lot of public apologies.

Fair or not, people have become rather cynical.

Revenge mentality.

Same thing that drives the idiotic social desire for the reintroduction of capital punishment.

Re-introduction... yes >.>

*whistles America the beautiful as he slowly and awkwardly walks away*

 

[Eamar]

It totally depends on the situation and the apology. Plus an apology, even a sincere one, isn't a golden ticket to getting away with whatever you've done. As Silvanus said, you're not obliged to accept an apology.

Take, for example, a murderer or rapist who eventually shows genuine remorse and apologises to the victim/victim's family. There are some people out there who feel it's some sort of moral failing on the victim's part if they don't accept the apology and forgive the perpetrator, but that's not a point of view I can understand.

That's an extreme example obviously, but everyone has their tipping points and things they consider unforgivable. Personally I think that forgiveness, while obviously beneficial in many circumstances, can be overrated.

 

[Vegosiux]

It totally depends on the situation and the apology. Plus an apology, even a sincere one, isn't a golden ticket to getting away with whatever you've done. As Silvanus said, you're not obliged to accept an apology.

Take, for example, a murderer or rapist who eventually shows genuine remorse and apologises to the victim/victim's family. There are some people out there who feel it's some sort of moral failing on the victim's part if they don't accept the apology and forgive the perpetrator, but that's not a point of view I can understand.

That's an extreme example obviously, but everyone has their tipping points and things they consider unforgivable. Personally I think that forgiveness, while obviously beneficial in many circumstances, can be overrated.

Actually, I'd say that apologies can be overrated too, that's why we're getting so many insincere ones that only exist for the sake of public image. And then likely a very exasperated person going "Look, I said I was sorry, wasn't that what you wanted to hear?"

I'm actually of the opinion that nobody is under obligation to give an apology either, it's all result of a certain social dynamic; in this particular case the fact that we say "We want you to apologize for what you did", we actually mean "We want you to show remorse for what you did". The two sure sound similar, but are very different, and I suspect it's precisely of that dichotomy we're getting so many of them that are actually a waste of breath.

Now, when I say nobody is under obligation to give an apology I mean that if I offended you in some manner, no, I don't owe you an apology, but then I shouldn't be surprised if you stop inviting me to your parties, of course. Not being an ass to people is not something people owe to each other, but I would say it is something they should bloody well strive for anyway.

 

[Parasondox]

On the other hand, there are apologies of the kind Thaluikhain described, or apologies that simply do not make up for the damage. The Liberal Democrats, here in the UK, have made a few apologies, but the damage done is too large in some respects. That apology does not earn them that trust back. People are under no obligation to accept an apology.

You do have a good point. When it comes to a political apology, the public, including myself, won't accept it that easily. I think mostly because those who say "I promise to do create 'X' to fix 'Y' when I become..." make it seem as if everyone is a fool for falling for false promises. If you promise something than you will get some peoples hopes up. Then when it doesn't come come through, or the opposite effect happens, it becomes, "Well we did try, I'm sorry for the mess up". Don't make up promises Nick Clegg that you can't keep!!!

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I'm reminded of how Microsoft keeps apologizing and "fixing" the very things it was trying to push forth not a week ago.

 

[Call me Baz]

I'm gonna go ahead and say "Yeah, I don't think people should still be howling for Jeremy Clarkson to be fired" since that's what my brain attached to what you were saying.

As petty as some of the causes may seem to be for witch hunts, I'm not surprised (nor will I ever be) that another one has been organised, pitchforks raised in disgust for something or other. Some people just take offense over some stuff easier than others, and especially with the internet now people who never would have known of some issue now have access to it (or perhaps only the stories, which is just terrible) and decide to take up the charge of crucifying the culprit of some first-world act of war on humanity.

What I'm saying is, people get way too fired up for shoop that isn't even worth attention just to feel like they're doing something important, and it actually really annoys me. I'm sure in this world of billions of people everyone should be able to find a place they can be happy and not have to make other peoples' lives miserable, too bad some people never find that place.

 

[Parasondox]

I'm gonna go ahead and say "Yeah, I don't think people should still be howling for Jeremy Clarkson to be fired" since that's what my brain attached to what you were saying.

As petty as some of the causes may seem to be for witch hunts, I'm not surprised (nor will I ever be) that another one has been organised, pitchforks raised in disgust for something or other. Some people just take offense over some stuff easier than others, and especially with the internet now people who never would have known of some issue now have access to it (or perhaps only the stories, which is just terrible) and decide to take up the charge of crucifying the culprit of some first-world act of war on humanity.

What I'm saying is, people get way too fired up for shoop that isn't even worth attention just to feel like they're doing something important, and it actually really annoys me. I'm sure in this world of billions of people everyone should be able to find a place they can be happy and not have to make other peoples' lives miserable, too bad some people never find that place.

Well Jeremy Clarkson is one of the reasons why I did this post. He said the N word off camera to a friend as a way of saying mate and such and time to grab the pitch forks. Yeah he shouldn't have said it and he apologised multiple times. Don't start a damn war over it. As a young black person, am I offended by him using the word? No, because he didn't do it in a hateful manner. Let's be honest here, I hear that world on a daily where friends are saying it to each other as bros and close mates and they are of different races. It's been so normalised by music that it really has a different meaning today. Does it still make it right? Well that debate will still be going on even after my passing. Even using the term "black person" offends others. Some will say no, others will say yes and many will just say "It's Jeremy Clarkson, what the fuck do I care what he does, when it doesn't affect my life personally". He apologised and will think twice about saying it again. Why be sacked for that mistake?

Another is the Nintendo situation and other examples I can't think of at the moment. Oh even the Colbert tweet thing that was just stupid. He did satire, someone misunderstood completely and wanted his show cancelled. Time to jump the gun and join the crowd of the outraged.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

It would be nice if people would take apologies at face value until proven otherwise. However, I've have seen apologies and future plans by a certain game company who is mostly known by a two-letter abbreviation be totally dissected, with people taking every word spoken and trying to find a way to spin it negatively.

Past history does play a part of it. If someone has a history of insincere apologies...well, the phrase "crying wolf" comes to mind. However, I don't like the fact that people seem to be so cynical that even apologies are being held up to the light, trying to find the most negative reading on them. I've lived with someone who would take anything directed towards her as negatively as possible, though, so I may be a bit biased there.

 

[Loonyyy]

Well Jeremy Clarkson is one of the reasons why I did this post. He said the N word off camera to a friend as a way of saying mate and such and time to grab the pitch forks. Yeah he shouldn't have said it and he apologised multiple times. Don't start a damn war over it. As a young black person, am I offended by him using the word? No, because he didn't do it in a hateful manner. Let's be honest here, I hear that world on a daily where friends are saying it to each other as bros and close mates and they are of different races. It's been so normalised by music that it really has a different meaning today. Does it still make it right? Well that debate will still be going on even after my passing. Even using the term "black person" offends others. Some will say no, others will say yes and many will just say "It's Jeremy Clarkson, what the fuck do I care what he does, when it doesn't affect my life personally". He apologised and will think twice about saying it again. Why be sacked for that mistake?

Another is the Nintendo situation and other examples I can't think of at the moment. Oh even the Colbert tweet thing that was just stupid. He did satire, someone misunderstood completely and wanted his show cancelled. Time to jump the gun and join the crowd of the outraged.

If the Clarkson meant it when he apologised people might be more forgiving, but when his program makes disparaging comments about Mexicans, he talks about killing people on strike, he uses the n-word under his breath, and calls an asian man on the set a "slope" it gets more and more tiresome that the man is paid by the license payers.

Nintendo did do right by apologising, however, they first made a bunch of homophobic statements where they relegated any sexuality that isn't straight as "Political commentary" or some guff. They could have gotten off scott-free, but instead they made a bunch of extremely offensive and hurtful statements, and some people really aren't all that forgiving towards that, and aren't in the mood to go out and buy their games. Which, in the end, is what this is all about. Not whether their apology is accepted, but if we'll buy their shit. And if we don't buy their shit, or give Clarkson more money (He ain't starving, and if the BBC got rid of him, he'd be snapped up in a second. Fuck, he could pay for his own show and sell it), it's said that it's a witch hunt. Or that more of their blood is wanted. I've given fucking blood, and it's completely different to have blood taken than to have someone not give you money.

The Colbert situation at least I'll admit to not feeling that he did anything wrong, although there was an unfortunate miscommunication with the twitter accounts. I can see how it's offensive, but that's kind of the point, and most people are satisfied with that, I'm fairly sure.

But no-one is obligated to accept an apology, and this ridiculous business of playing it like Nintendo, or Jeremy fucking Clarkson are victims is beyond the pale. They're extremely rich and powerful, they're fine, they'll get over it. Jeremy Clarkson wants to be a racist, classist, sexist, piece of shit? I'll not be very interested in watching his show, and if I was British, I'd not be interested in him being funded in any way. Nintendo wants to make comments which denote people who aren't straight as some sort of a politically correct attraction, some sort of a statement, a side show? I'm not going to be interested in buying their shit either (Nor do I feel very charitable towards their future entries including them. I'm not keen to see same-sex relationships waved by those fuckers). And I'm not going to feel awfully nice towards them, because I really don't give a shit about their apologies. Why's it always about those fuckers? Why can't it be about people with an actual complaint?

 

[Hero in a half shell]

Well Jeremy Clarkson is one of the reasons why I did this post. He said the N word off camera to a friend as a way of saying mate and such and time to grab the pitch forks. Yeah he shouldn't have said it and he apologised multiple times. Don't start a damn war over it. As a young black person, am I offended by him using the word? No, because he didn't do it in a hateful manner. Let's be honest here, I hear that world on a daily where friends are saying it to each other as bros and close mates and they are of different races. It's been so normalised by music that it really has a different meaning today. Does it still make it right? Well that debate will still be going on even after my passing. Even using the term "black person" offends others. Some will say no, others will say yes and many will just say "It's Jeremy Clarkson, what the fuck do I care what he does, when it doesn't affect my life personally". He apologised and will think twice about saying it again. Why be sacked for that mistake?

Another is the Nintendo situation and other examples I can't think of at the moment. Oh even the Colbert tweet thing that was just stupid. He did satire, someone misunderstood completely and wanted his show cancelled. Time to jump the gun and join the crowd of the outraged.

If the Clarkson meant it when he apologised people might be more forgiving, but when his program makes disparaging comments about Mexicans, he talks about killing people on strike, he uses the n-word under his breath, and calls an asian man on the set a "slope" it gets more and more tiresome that the man is paid by the license payers.

Just on the Clarkson issue, when he called for strikers to be killed that was sensationalist newspapers literally misquoting him to stir up controversy. What he actually said was along the lines of "I support the strikers, but due to BBC impartiality I also have to say they should be shot" (basically making fun of the BBCs insistence that they be 'non-biased' by always stating multiple points of view, regardless of whether those views come from experts or idiots.)

And the 'n' word controversy was another tabloid doing, considering the recording was from about 2006, the 'n' word was never actually said, and Clarkson has evidence to show he didn't want any hint of that word about - an email from himself to the producers asking for a retake, and the final cut that was shown at the time where he changed the nursery rhyme entirely to omit any reference).

While the Mexican and Indian controversies are true, and while I don't personally like Clarkson's abrasive ego, he was not being racist in these specific cases.

Also this:


That's on the BBC Youtube channel.

half a million views. 30 dislikes.

 

[zegram33]

I should clarify: when Jeremy Clarkson talked about killing people on strike, he...didn't really say that.
He more or less said "I'm ok with the strike, cant really comment......oh, but to balance that out....should take them outside and shoot them"
(its a well-known thing that the BBC GENERALLY tries to balance out any statement, so few BBC presenters will show strong opinions on any topic unless that's their job)

so basically, that was a joke about the BBC's standards, which was turned into more or less outright character assassination.
I legitimately cannot find the full excerpt from the one show, but there is an analyst who sort of talks through it here, although : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN72DAlhovY

Don't get me wrong, he's not exactly a great person and has certainly said some very un PC things, but, well... listen to laughter among the audience on that link when he says it.
It was clearly a joke, but the part that shows that was omitted from all the reports (to the extent that I cant even FIND the whole conversation online)

sorry if that sidetracked the discussion a bit, but I do think its a good example of how people can be really very mistaken about whether an apology is necessary or enough


EDIT: Epically Ninja'd

 

[Loonyyy]

Well Jeremy Clarkson is one of the reasons why I did this post. He said the N word off camera to a friend as a way of saying mate and such and time to grab the pitch forks. Yeah he shouldn't have said it and he apologised multiple times. Don't start a damn war over it. As a young black person, am I offended by him using the word? No, because he didn't do it in a hateful manner. Let's be honest here, I hear that world on a daily where friends are saying it to each other as bros and close mates and they are of different races. It's been so normalised by music that it really has a different meaning today. Does it still make it right? Well that debate will still be going on even after my passing. Even using the term "black person" offends others. Some will say no, others will say yes and many will just say "It's Jeremy Clarkson, what the fuck do I care what he does, when it doesn't affect my life personally". He apologised and will think twice about saying it again. Why be sacked for that mistake?

Another is the Nintendo situation and other examples I can't think of at the moment. Oh even the Colbert tweet thing that was just stupid. He did satire, someone misunderstood completely and wanted his show cancelled. Time to jump the gun and join the crowd of the outraged.

If the Clarkson meant it when he apologised people might be more forgiving, but when his program makes disparaging comments about Mexicans, he talks about killing people on strike, he uses the n-word under his breath, and calls an asian man on the set a "slope" it gets more and more tiresome that the man is paid by the license payers.

Just on the Clarkson issue, when he called for strikers to be killed that was sensationalist newspapers literally misquoting him to stir up controversy. What he actually said was along the lines of "I support the strikers, but due to BBC impartiality I also have to say they should be shot" (basically making fun of the BBCs insistence that they be 'non-biased' by always stating multiple points of view, regardless of whether those views come from experts or idiots.)

Fair call. I seem to have been misled on this issue.

And the 'n' word controversy was another tabloid doing, considering the recording was from about 2006, the 'n' word was never actually said, and Clarkson has evidence to show he didn't want any hint of that word about - an email from himself to the producers asking for a retake, and the final cut that was shown at the time where he changed the nursery rhyme entirely to omit any reference).

While the Mexican and Indian controversies are true, and while I don't personally like Clarkson's abrasive ego, he was not being racist in these specific cases.

The impression I got was that he mumbled something questionable, and that caused a stir. To my mind, it's really not important the current stir about him maybe saying an offensive term, and more that it once more makes a focus of the fact that Clarkson frequently makes racist remarks and sentiments (Probably because he's an old racist white dude). If this was all he'd ever done like this, then it'd be whatever. But using Clarkson as any sort of an example of someone who's apologies are worth anything is silly.

Also this:


That's on the BBC Youtube channel.

half a million views. 30 dislikes.

I'm not sure where I made any reference to that, or why you think it's pertinent to me, although the cynic in me suspects it's part of some diverting false equivalence nonsense where I end up being asked to address why I'm bothered by Clarkson while children are staving in Africa.

 

[Parasondox]

If the Clarkson meant it when he apologised people might be more forgiving, but when his program makes disparaging comments about Mexicans, he talks about killing people on strike, he uses the n-word under his breath, and calls an asian man on the set a "slope" it gets more and more tiresome that the man is paid by the license payers.

At the moment of the post, I weren't pointing out the crap he did in the past but the mistake made in this recent case. The past is the past and is another talk for another day. In this situation with the "n-word", a mistake was made, he apologised but is more needed? Lose a show, lose a job, well you know, "he can manage" You see, if he weren't famous or part of the BBC (in which the BBC has a million problems and Clarkson is a drop in the ocean), would you be this outraged and demand more? As others have explained, it looks like the case was made into more than it was.

Nintendo did do right by apologising, however, they first made a bunch of homophobic statements where they relegated any sexuality that isn't straight as "Political commentary" or some guff. They could have gotten off scott-free, but instead they made a bunch of extremely offensive and hurtful statements, and some people really aren't all that forgiving towards that, and aren't in the mood to go out and buy their games. Which, in the end, is what this is all about. Not whether their apology is accepted, but if we'll buy their shit. And if we don't buy their shit, or give Clarkson more money (He ain't starving, and if the BBC got rid of him, he'd be snapped up in a second. Fuck, he could pay for his own show and sell it), it's said that it's a witch hunt. Or that more of their blood is wanted. I've given fucking blood, and it's completely different to have blood taken than to have someone not give you money.

Maybe they saw it as "political commentary" because in Japan, where this game was only released in, does not recognize gay marriage and pretty much outlawed? It isn't an international game, it's national and maybe bringing up gay marriage will become a political commentary in Japan? It's a thought and I am not saying what they did was right. Hey I respect everything you are saying but it seems more than personal here. I'm trying to be neutral and see both sides to this.

 

[Hero in a half shell]

The impression I got was that he mumbled something questionable, and that caused a stir. To my mind, it's really not important the current stir about him maybe saying an offensive term, and more that it once more makes a focus of the fact that Clarkson frequently makes racist remarks and sentiments (Probably because he's an old racist white dude). If this was all he'd ever done like this, then it'd be whatever. But using Clarkson as any sort of an example of someone who's apologies are worth anything is silly.

That's on the BBC Youtube channel.

half a million views. 30 dislikes.

I'm not sure where I made any reference to that, or why you think it's pertinent to me, although the cynic in me suspects it's part of some diverting false equivalence nonsense where I end up being asked to address why I'm bothered by Clarkson while children are staving in Africa.

I do think Clarkson is being too offensive and controversial, and that although he does it for comedy, as you said, the frequency is not suitable and reveals a little too much about what his actual personal opinion is.

I didn't mean to direct the video at you, but I just wanted to bring it forward because I find it strange that the word was said openly in that case on the BBC, and uploaded to Youtube without any reaction, but in the Clarkson case a mumbled old recording of something that might have possibly been the word can have people calling for his head, when the contextual meaning of the word was pretty similar (in both cases the word wasn't directed at anyone in particular and was not intended to be used in an offensive manner- in the Clarkson case it was a mumble under the breath, intended for no one as he contemplated using the rhyme and trying not to say it.)
The BBC had huge coverage of absolute condemnation of the word after the Clarkson incident where everyone washed their hands of the situation, meanwhile we have a Youtube video on the BBC site openly mentioning it.

 

[Parasondox]

Revenge mentality.

Same thing that drives the idiotic social desire for the reintroduction of capital punishment.

Capital Punishment is a tricky debate even today. If people are calling for that when someone does something that isn't linked to a major mass crime, then we will all have a serious problem. Actually, people would be sentenced to death in other countries if they were the victim. Damn sad.