SorryNot

SorryNotSorry 

When ‘Sorry’ is an insult. 

It’s not “we are sorry for what we did” because that would be a confession. 

It’s “we are sorry you feel that way” as if your emotional reaction and attitude to them is the problem and adjusting your emotions and attitude is the solution. 

The focus is on who is wrong and who has to change. 

By focus only on the reaction and not on the causative problem we whitewash the original problem and shift blame onto the target of the original problem. 

Obviously we want to heal hurt emotions. However, that’s not going to happen until the causative factor admits it is in error and adjusts that by taking accountability. 

The situation we have instead is the causative factor is maintaining a narrative that their own behaviour is irrelevant, it is their target which is in error. 

This is a description of classical narcissistic abuse. 

Why do they function this way? 

Who has to gain? 

It’s a power game. Those using this specific power game do not recognise how ignoring peoples needs and not taking accountability only breeds contempt and resentment in addition to the original insult. It does not heal. It does not accrue respectability for those using this strategy. 

It says ‘you are disposable to me from the outset but you are expected to respect me even when I abuse you. Your failure to do so will be criticised. After we have done our business and go our separate ways, I have no interest whatsoever in your opinion of me. I have no interest investing authenticity into our relationship. You will remain disposable.’

That’s a lot to bring to the table as a relationship or business strategy. 

Authenticity does not play such power games. 

What can be done about it? 

1 Do not trade or interact with people who behave that way. 

2 If you have no choice to avoid them, continue to present openly and honestly your assessment of the discourse in the hope it will get through to them at some level. This is necessary to educate them in how Humanitarianism is a prerequisite of actively ‘being’ Human. 

Example; show them this manuscript. 

However, there is a flip-side. Mathis is where it gets messy deciding between the two paradigms we are discussing here. 

“I can see you are upset with me and are expecting me to say sorry. I genuinely feel I did nothing whatsoever wrong. Although I can see you are expecting me to apologise to you, I can also see this is a power game where you are positioning me. You do not want to hear this because it will further upset you. I do however have a right to raise my boundaries about being positioned into an inferior position to elevate you to a superior position, simply because you are upset, when I strongly feel I have done nothing wrong. 

You are using emotional manipulation as a method of power and control. This is coercive behaviour. I might be wrong about this in which case I would be genuinely sorry for that. I will not apologise to you for something I have not done. You will have to accept that. 

I live with hope on the greater good you will in time regard my position on this as simply a refusal to be played by an emotional manipulation technique. I ask you to level up and meet me on the level which authentic people meet on instead of lip-service to and sacrifice of authenticity, for the purpose of immediate gratification. 

If you’re asking me to put a band-aid on a wound which needs stitches I would rather send you to a hospital than to do either of us the disservice of pretence.”

Modernism cannot recognise its own failings.

That’s the core of its failing. 

It is because it generates non-accountability. 

It has led to a pandemic of Narcissism. 

It has led to catastrophic global pollution. 

We do not have to be party to that.