• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

When did it become a sign of weakness to apologize? (1 Viewer)

Is apologizing a sign of weakness?

  • Yes

    Votes: 1 4.5%
  • No

    Votes: 18 81.8%
  • Other

    Votes: 3 13.6%

  • Total voters
    22

MaggieD

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 9, 2010
Messages
43,244
Reaction score
44,664
Location
Chicago Area
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate


The relevant portion is right in the very beginning. IMO, HC was about to say, "....for that, I...." APOLOGIZE. But she has been coached to never say that, as most politicians are.

When I'm wrong, I apologize. When did the ability to admit a mistake become a weakness? If anyone makes the assumption I'm weak because of an apology I may have made, I can assure you they will see the error of their ways very quickly.

i look at the ability to apologize as being a strength. When on EARTH did it change? And why?
 
The relevant portion is right in the very beginning. IMO, HC was about to say, "....for that, I...." APOLOGIZE. But she has been coached to never say that, as most politicians are.

When I'm wrong, I apologize. When did the ability to admit a mistake become a weakness? If anyone makes the assumption I'm weak because of an apology I may have made, I can assure you they will see the error of their ways very quickly.

i look at the ability to apologize as being a strength. When on EARTH did it change? And why?
In truth, apologizing... when appropriate... is a sign of strength. But I understand your question, and have thought about it before.

As with anything political, we simply are not allowed to be adults anymore. Apologizing is a sign of weakness... a sign of error... a sign of incompetence... a sign that their opponent and/or the other side wouldn't have effed it up. That's how people on the other side now react and portray it in politics... and we see it right here at DP every single day at this lower level.

As much as I hate it, I understand that people feel the need to protect themselves by not giving the other side something to pounce on.
 


The relevant portion is right in the very beginning. IMO, HC was about to say, "....for that, I...." APOLOGIZE. But she has been coached to never say that, as most politicians are.

When I'm wrong, I apologize. When did the ability to admit a mistake become a weakness? If anyone makes the assumption I'm weak because of an apology I may have made, I can assure you they will see the error of their ways very quickly.

i look at the ability to apologize as being a strength. When on EARTH did it change? And why?


I see it very much the same as you do, though I also believe it is a cultural thing and one of circumstances.
 
What Hillary cannot do is be honest and say that she created a private server to foil (control?) FOIA access or that it contained classified data because they are both serious crimes. That makes it necessary to lie and stick to the created for convenience "mistake", that she (eventually) instructed "others" to forward all work related data to the State Department and to deny any classified data was ever placed on it. The DOJ does not care so why should Hillary?
 
I voted no. It's not possible to be 100% correct about everything, every time.

I do think apologies must be viewed in context, however.
 
An apology is an admission of fault but not necessarily a sign of weakness. That being said, the scale of the screw up which inspired the apology must also be considered. For example, "I'm sorry I knocked over your cocktail" is one thing while "I'm sorry that my coup attempt started a civil war in your country and has lead to the death of a few million people" is quite another.
 


The relevant portion is right in the very beginning. IMO, HC was about to say, "....for that, I...." APOLOGIZE. But she has been coached to never say that, as most politicians are.

When I'm wrong, I apologize. When did the ability to admit a mistake become a weakness? If anyone makes the assumption I'm weak because of an apology I may have made, I can assure you they will see the error of their ways very quickly.

i look at the ability to apologize as being a strength. When on EARTH did it change? And why?


I blame Canada....
 


The relevant portion is right in the very beginning. IMO, HC was about to say, "....for that, I...." APOLOGIZE. But she has been coached to never say that, as most politicians are.

When I'm wrong, I apologize. When did the ability to admit a mistake become a weakness? If anyone makes the assumption I'm weak because of an apology I may have made, I can assure you they will see the error of their ways very quickly.

i look at the ability to apologize as being a strength. When on EARTH did it change? And why?


Apologizing means that you aren't infallible and that has become the ultimate sin in American politics. You have to have all the answers and every decision you make must be the perfect one for the situation. Anything short of that is no longer acceptable.
 


The relevant portion is right in the very beginning. IMO, HC was about to say, "....for that, I...." APOLOGIZE. But she has been coached to never say that, as most politicians are.

When I'm wrong, I apologize. When did the ability to admit a mistake become a weakness? If anyone makes the assumption I'm weak because of an apology I may have made, I can assure you they will see the error of their ways very quickly.

i look at the ability to apologize as being a strength. When on EARTH did it change? And why?


Because of the power of true believers.

Just look at gun control: policies that have 90% public support can't even make it to the senate because of the voracity of that 10% of true believers.

Leaders need to instill confidence, and the average voter is not necessarily going to expend a lot of intellectual muscle on critical thinking, rather, we use our perspectives and the emotions that result.

Issuing an apology erodes confidence.
 
I voted no. It's not possible to be 100% correct about everything, every time.

I do think apologies must be viewed in context, however.

You can say you were mistaken or wrong without giving a full-throated Obama-like apology.
 
When on EARTH did it change? And why?

(1) With Obama, (2) because the GOP wanted to criticize him but was starting to feel embarassed about the whole birther thing.



a full-throated Obama-like apology.

And some just couldn't let go...
 
Because of the power of true believers.

Just look at gun control: policies that have 90% public support can't even make it to the senate because of the voracity of that 10% of true believers.

Leaders need to instill confidence, and the average voter is not necessarily going to expend a lot of intellectual muscle on critical thinking, rather, we use our perspectives and the emotions that result.

Issuing an apology erodes confidence.

When the government must obey the second amendment it doesn't matter if 90% of the people are against it.
 
The answer is "Sometimes".

Apologizing after it has been demanded by the alleged victim or their advocates is a sign a weakness, and I make it a habit to rarely do that.

Unprovoked apologizes are a sign of strength, if they are genuine, which requires that which is being applogized for actually happened and the person who is apologizing actually had a major hand in it happening.

Apologizing for what other people did, especially apologizing for what dead people did long ago, sets me off most of the time.
 
Last edited:
When the government must obey the second amendment it doesn't matter if 90% of the people are against it.

The government has a method to change the constitution, it has been used before, but that's irrelevant anyway.

The point isn't that the 90% is correct, it's that the 90% doesn't matter. Reasonable people, facts, logic- this **** doesn't matter in elections. It's all about rhetoric, sophistry, perception, and emotion.
 
I really think it is the rash of victim culture driven fake apologies that drives this idea that an apology is a sign of weakness.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom