Who is wrong in situations factors into High Ground. Apologizing has potential to reinforce perception of right and justified, right and justified is not always ideal representation established or delivered.
If one says to a system of justice that has corruption in it, I am sorry for my actions, does that force the justice system to acknowledge the wrong in its own actions? Who says sorry, when, why, and how matters and has potential for reinforcing precedent, historic precedent that is not always good, not always should.
Inspiring apologies, inspiring others to apologize has potential to limit confidence. Limited confidence is not always ideal support delivered. Sometimes apologies are about more than the apology themselves, they have the potential at time for factoring into capacity of we are right and you are wrong, and that has potential for less than ideal Golden Rule established and delivered.
Apologies are required to be made in public ways at times, requirement to reinforce the rightness of one party and wrongness of another party while failing to acknowledge that the world including both parties are not always ideal sin reduced. Focus might be limited to one topic while failing to adequately acknowledge other topics while reinforcing oppression, less than ideal truth and relevance limiting as a useful system.
Listen, Apologize, Solve, and Thank is part of customer service. Thus it becomes common practice for companies to apologize for the wrongs at times, while still maintaining representation of negated liability and negated responsibility – we are sorry you feel that way but we want to remind you you signed away liability in the terms and conditions. Sorry not sorry turned up as common practice for society is consequential. High Ground matters, opening the door to lawsuits that might bankrupt companies is consequential, how leaders lead matters and that factors into how people act in general.
It is like the national debt, we are in huge debt reiterated yet time and time again we keep spending. Sorry for borrowing from the future, not sorry from borrowing from the future stated not stated. You need to apologize to a justice system that sells away future to national debt, and corporate profit that profits some over others? Forced to apologize to a system like that feels all good, should, would? If I or others say the system should apologize for that, does that factor into High Ground, perception of High Ground, perception of adequate and sufficient value delivered?
Or is it better to say to the system, sorry not sorry? Would it be unreasonable to take a lesson from the system, leadership within the system, relevance limiting within the system? If one person has to apologize, should not all have to apologize, bring forth withheld information and truths? Less than ideal truth as in by design as to remain in by design is consequential, should be more reason for grace and forgiveness, less requirements for apologies, apologies that profit some parties over others to be inspired.
All that said ideally apologizing would establish better relationships, though given at times apologies seem more about establishing right and wrong, high ground and less claims to high ground gives feeling of apologies and apologizing is not always inspired with best of intentions. People might apologize at times because of love and grace, that might not deliver ideal perception and comprehension of right and wrong, value and reason to move forward with in the future. Apologies might be seen as A owe, A will not happen again – factors outside of apologies sometimes factor into what people are apologizing for. World Governments, Corporations, and people all profit from throughput and profit that is achieved on less than ideal grounds, cars lead to car crashes that might take lives, yet we don’t all stop using cars start walking – we are sorry it works out that way, don’t want it to work out that way, doesn’t equate to we are ideally fixing the problem. Mindsets we reinforce by action and inaction is consequential.
If I could inspire people to apologize for the right things at the right times to generate better peace and comprehension I would. That said I don’t think apologies and comprehension or necessity of high ground is always established with ideal intentions. Less than ideal intentions are consequential, might lead to the wrong people in power.
“Just don’t let it happen again” set to A win, A wind, A comprehend, as A’s mins? Friend you row ow, ouch compounded while others set to don’t have to tamed, famed?
Apologies might A owe on the wrong parties, while failing to address the LTIs (less than ideals) that are left IBD (in by design). A World that capitalizes on LTIs, while giving less apologies should not expect ideal apologies in return, turning up better apologies for the right reason matters. Society of gets to withhold forgiveness dependent upon apologies while capitalizing on LTIs IBD feels LTI. I don’t want people to cut me off in traffic and I don’t ideally turn up defensive driving in society, should I be able to require an apology? An apology doesn’t turn up defensive driving by default, might turn up High Ground for me, all Golden Rule inspired? Turning up defensive driving not my responsibility? could capitalize on that? Not an LTI?
Golden Rule treat others as you want to be treated. I want to be cut off in traffic less, also want others cut off in traffic less, I don’t want to be forced to apologize based on less-than-ideal comprehension delivered – you should have known better but I don’t have to raise comprehension feels a bit less than ideal in combination. Trying to limit a conversation like the following:
“If you make a mistake I get to punish.”
“What is a mistake?”
“I don’t have to teach that.”
Should have known better as landmines for less fortunate, those with less money and time to invest in greater comprehension? Better to say raising comprehension for others is important and less than ideally invested in. An important reminder that the writer of this document is far less than ideal comprehension. Might have missed something important does not equate to people have to tell me what that is.
I like to A comprehension of not being cut off in traffic as a right, as just a given, as something society sufficiently establishes by default, as owed. If I see it more as privilege, a privilege that has potential to be turned up or down, I might be more likely to be able to comprehend risk around it more ideally, the value in turning up messages like defensive driving. People like myself, who post videos from others about Electrical Safety and Defensive Driving are sometimes oppressed is worthy of considering, message and raising awareness amplifies far less than ideally.
My Tech Blog 