The one correct response to an insincere apology

[Bandersnatch]

'Well, well, well. So it has come to this.'

'In that case, I'll see you in court.'

'You leave me no choice. Tomorrow noon. Pistols.'

'Interesting. It's just like the Gypsy woman said.'

'I came here to chew bubble gum and listen to nonpologies. And I'm all out of gum.'

'I love you, and I don't doubt your love. But you hurt me, back there, and you're hurting me now. I want to stay focused on the love, but my ego really wants to take umbrage. I'm sorry.'

'Behold yon field, where I grow my fracks. Lo! It is barren.'

It doesn't matter what the sleight was;

Did it involve pointing out your propensity for malapropisms? :P

 

[DaveC426913]

Did it involve pointing out your propensity for malapropisms? :P

sunuvagun. I've got such a pet peeve about people talking about "slights-of-hand" that I've started over-correcting, and inserting "sleight" in all cases.

 

[DaveC426913]

I should point out once again, that is only one case.
I've had (adult) children offer similar facetious apologies.

(At some point, I half expect someone to say "Gee, what's the common element here? Have you considered adding a mirror to your toolkit of analytical tools?")

 

[JT Smith]

Well, if we're going to go into the weeds here ... the fundamental issue is one of ancient emotional baggage - the offender's triggers - the need to protect themselves from any admonition at the expense of their compassion for the injured party.

It may be optimistic to expect contrition to be forthcoming from someone who has historically felt continually psychologically cuffed about the head and shoulders (even if those psychological cuffs come from ghosts, now long dead).

You're right, it's a level deeper than I was suggesting. Still the question is what do you want to accomplish? If we can serve up the the ideal response will it further your goal? Or just make you feel better?

What is the source of the aggression? I don't know, maybe there's something you need to apologize for? I'm not saying that's it, just that we don't have the whole back history.

What's couples therapy cost these days, $150/hr?

 

[DaveC426913]

Still the question is what do you want to accomplish?

Let me pose a completely unrelated (and again, fictional) scenario to make a point.

A friend of mine could not bring himself to arrange an intervention for his wife's drinking.
We are pretty sure the reason he didn't try very hard is because it would shine a light on his own drug use.
So he was enabling her. Or she, him. Or they were co-dependent.

Getting into a discussion about the issue might result in him coming up with all sorts of excuses, dodges and rationalizations - trying to stay in the shadows of his motives and fears.

But invoking the words "enabling" and "co-dependency" cuts right to the source of the problem. These are well-known behaviors with well-defined circumstances. Invoking them short-circuits any dodging and weaving - say, the ploy of pretending we are imagining things, or otherwise don't know what we're talking about. He has little choice but to acknowlege that enablement and co-dependency are well-established behaviors and clearly apply here. He can't really pick a fight with decades of modern psychology.

It shines a pinpoint light on the murky behavior, making the point succinctly, clinically and without emotion, with the aim of de-eascalating an emotionally-charged issue, and clearing the way for straight talk that is more likely to lead to a positive outcome.I have been looking for such a thing for the defensive behevior described in the OP.

 

[DennisN]

Let me pose a completely unrelated (and again, fictional) scenario to make a point.

A friend of mine could not bring himself to arrange an intervention for his wife's drinking.
We are pretty sure the reason he didn't try very hard is because it would shine a light on his own drug use.
So he was enabling her. Or she, him. Or they were co-dependent.

Getting into a discussion about the issue might result in him coming up with all sorts of excuses, dodges and rationalizations - trying to stay in the shadows of his motives and fears.

That is a tricky scenario indeed.
Regarding substance abuse/substance dependency (if that is part of the issue) I'm not very familiar with such situations. But from what I have picked up from psychological sources is that there often is an underlying reason (psychological/physical/situational) reason for substance abuse/substance dependency. That is, there is something underneath that is driving the self-medicating behavior.
(see Wikipedia: Self-medication)

But invoking the words "enabling" and "co-dependency" cuts right to the source of the problem. These are well-known behaviors with well-defined circumstances.

Yes.

Though, I personally would not know how to intervene in such a situation.
I would probably be cautious of using psychological terms in a real situation.

I think I would first consult a professional therapist who has experience with the issues being central to the particular situation, and then follow the advice from the therapist.

 

[jack action]

The more I try to understand the motivation behind this thread, the more it looks like someone is trying to figure out new ways to gaslight someone else.

one partner is consistently negating the other's perception, insisting that they are wrong, or telling them that their emotional reaction is irrational or dysfunctional.

 

[DaveC426913]

The more I try to understand the motivation behind this thread, the more it looks like someone is trying to figure out new ways to gaslight someone else.

It could only be gaslighting if it were untrue.

If you said "Thunder is the angels bowling. Isn't God great?"
And I said "Well actually, thunder is the rapid expansion of air caused by a discharge of lightning. This is well known. "
Would I be 'gaslighting' you by shining a rational light on your beliefs about our mysterious world?

 

[jack action]

It could only be gaslighting if it were untrue.

If you said "Thunder is the angels bowling. Isn't God great?"
And I said "Well actually, thunder is the rapid expansion of air caused by a discharge of lightning. This is well known. "
Would I be 'gaslighting' you by shining a rational light on your beliefs about our mysterious world?

True. But when I'm given a scenario where one person accuses the other one of having a drinking problem, while the other person thinks his drinking is fine and under control, how can we tell who's right when hearing the story from one side only?

When hearing the story from one side only, how can I tell if one person went too far humiliating someone else, or if that someone else just got offended too easily?

The truth is often a matter of perception.

 

[Baluncore]

The demand for an apology is often used by those in a position of power, to teach or control others. For example, adults may believe they are teaching a child, with the apology being from one child to another.

When you demand an apology from another adult, you are "playing the victim". When an apology comes to you from another adult, it should be volunteered, sincerely. Any demand for an apology can be interpreted as a manipulation, bordering on controlling behaviour.

An insincere apology to you, teaches you to shed your childish ways, and get on with living. You now know what they are capable of, and better understand their values. Let that direct your future actions.

 

[JT Smith]

The latest example doesn't involve a person in a position of power. And because of its presumably fictitious nature we can assume that we know what the truth is.

But I still don't have an answer. It's not a circumstance (in general) most are unfamiliar with. I can think of a case in my own life instantly. Somehow, some way, you have to make a connection that is meaningful. It helps when there is some urgency.

 

[DaveC426913]

True. But when I'm given a scenario where one person accuses the other one of having a drinking problem, while the other person thinks his drinking is fine and under control, how can we tell who's right when hearing the story from one side only?

When hearing the story from one side only, how can I tell if one person went too far humiliating someone else, or if that someone else just got offended too easily?

The truth is often a matter of perception.

Sigh. The scenarios are NOT what this thread is about. This thread is about finding a term or adage that sheds light on the passive-aggressive behavior of someone who offers a facetious apology in the stead of a sincere one.

 

[geordief]

Sigh. The scenarios are NOT what this thread is about. This thread is about finding a term or adage that sheds light on the passive-aggressive behavior of someone who offers a facetious apology in the stead of a sincere one.

Is it a sophisticated form of "playing possum"?

https://eu.citizen-times.com/story/...nal-good-number-animals-play-possum/82806258/

 

[Pen pen]

If all you had done was inform the other person that there actions had been hurtful or you were just letting them know how what they had done made you feel and did not "ask for an apology out right then the answer to how to respond would be to simply ask them why are they saying they are sorry if indeed they really are not but thanks anyway for allowing you to see the true nature of who they really are.

One the other hand if you had to ask them to apologize or tell then you feel like they owe you an apology after saying how something made you feel or hurt you in some way then you should already know that any apology you get won't be sincere.

A person who has done something hurtful will, when informed of a hurtful action, normally offer some sort of an apology. If they don't offer one don't ask for one because it will only hurt you more to get a fake one.

But one offered that is meant to simply shut you up or end the conversation should be addressed with either why apologize when you are not sorry or by just saying you were not looking for an apology but just wanted to let them know so that they don't do it again. Which in a way would be like letting them know that you already know that they are not sorry for it.

Hope that was helpful.

 

[syfry]

Your words could resemble an apology if you work on your phrasing and sincerity more.

Inspired by #13.

 

[davidjoe]

I’m going to assume the OP’s described scenario is actually what happened, but this will fit a lot of similar situations. I would suggest that the person making the statement wasn’t trying to embarrass you, and thought the information was relatable to the group, and the person thought they were making pleasant or at least innocent conversation, but misjudged some aspect of the information’s relevance or importance in that specific audience.

The person does see your point, but thinks you should see theirs, and is trying to go ahead and apologize but knows they cannot make it come across as more heartfelt, because they feel they have already paid a higher toll for the transgression than they deserved. They are really in a no win situation. Insensitivity is wrong on the one hand, but it’s not in their nature to add an embellishing affectation. They probably anticipated working the original information into building you up in one way or another, and my guess is that the person talking, was more of an outsider to the group and the conversation you were a major part of was this person, just trying to participate.

 

[DennisN]

Your words could resemble an apology if you work on your phrasing and sincerity more.

Inspired by #13.

Gosh, I enjoyed #14 on that page;
"14. It's okay, not everyone can be cool you see."

 

[dasf806]

Sorry. My question is how to address the facetious "I said I was sorry!" response.

I'm looking for a way of saying "You don't really mean you're sorry for hurting me".

Simply saying "That apology is facetious. Try again." doesn't deliver the message effectively.

My reaction to what they shared with others (in the moment): I would be embarrassed, hurt, and disappointed that they chose to share something very personal with others, that it was shared with them in confidentiality, that it created vulnerability, and that it demonstrated/built trust in them and our relationship. It was selfish of them to share it with others; it violated the trust I had given them and created a barrier between us.

My response to them saying, "I said I was sorry," would be to say, "I'm disappointed." It's truthful and direct and may elicit a reply like, "Why are you disappointed?"

If that happened, I would share my reaction with them above and see if my honest and transparent answer to their question causes them to think about and reconsider their "I said I'm sorry" response. I hope that my honest and authentic answer will create space and an avenue for them to do the same.

If it didn't generate that response, I would ask, "What are you sorry about?" If that doesn't generate a response, I'd absolutely know where I stood with them, the nature of the relationship, and where I stood with them.

I hope that makes sense and is useful.