Talk:Non-apology apology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Recent additions[edit]

I have regretfully reverted the recent good-faith addition of phrases like "lessons learned", "move on", "not a scientist," and "not going to talk about the past." They are certainly examples of political double-speak or obfuscation, but they do not appear to be intended a form of apology; it would be Original Research to categorize them as such. If a Reliable Source describes one of these phrases as a "non-apology apology," we can add that phrase back. There ought to be a place for this type of comment, but looking at Category:Political catch phrases and Category:American political catch phrases, I don't find an article where they could go. --MelanieN (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Actually I see that the same editor added them to "Mistakes were made" which may be a better place for them. --MelanieN (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Ifpology. Absurd.[edit]

"I'm sorry if you were offended by what I said". The "if" implies that the apologiser either doesn't even know they did wrong (and did not bother to find out) or else does not acknowledge that they did wrong and so are pretending to apologise because they feel obligated to rather than because they are actually sorry. There is no confirmation that the apologiser actually regrets anything or has learnt anything from what they did that was wrong. According to John Kador in Effective Apology, "Adding the word if or any other conditional modifier to an apology makes it a non-apology."[12]

This is one of the silliest things I have ever read. Rather than illustrating pathological paranoia perhaps some of us would assume that the phrase means the apologiser is unsure whether their words caused offence - specifically whether offence was taken or not. If I say something that was someone callous, and realise it / catch myself before the audience I am talking to has a chance to react, I could pre-emptively phrase an apology that way and it would be perfectly valid. This entire article seems like patent absurdity though, so I can understand why the most obvious implication was obtusely left out of the implications entirely. But dear freakin' god. C'mon. 124.190.227.150 (talk) 04:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry that you think this is absurd, but <patronising insult>. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Example January 2017 HP[edit]

Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:03, 24 January 2017 (UTC)