[TeMPOraL]

I think you haven't lost the aggregate meaning, and in fact you've managed to capture my own view on this issue perfectly. Thank you for this point-by-point elaboration.

I usually go out of my way to play cooperative with people. It often means that I try to say, "I wish it were possible to go back and time and restate that in a way that would achieve what I intended without hurting you".

Someone's surprising outrage at something I think is innocent also reveals my lack of understanding of that other person. Assuming their honesty, I want to go into this in order to better understand what's going on. Maybe we both actually think the same way about the issue, maybe it's just an unfortunate phrasing on my part that caused the problem? It happened this way many times.

So to circle back to the beginning of the whole thread - I don't think that "I'm sorry (if) I offended you" is always a non-apology. Just because someone is offended doesn't mean they're right. I learned the last one the hard way after being a victim of emotional abuse for over a year, when the other party got outraged or sad at random things to make me do whatever their wanted (and honestly, I'm not angry at them anymore - I grew to understand it was complicated and messy situation for both of us, as relationships sometimes turn out to be; the point is, it revealed a flaw in trying to atone for offending someone at all costs).

[masterzora]

> Just because someone is offended doesn't mean they're right. I learned the last one the hard way after being a victim of emotional abuse for over a year, when the other party got outraged or sad at random things to make me do whatever their wanted

I actually spent a couple years in a similar-sounding situation (and have similarly moved past the anger) so I unfortunately have a pretty good idea where you're coming from here. It's also a pretty different situation from what I think the discussion has mostly been centered around. I'm not sure how you handled the experience or what the general case is but I remember for me, for a while I was genuinely sorry for hurting them every time and then it eventually switched over to me just wanting to say whatever it took to stop the episode. It's actually a fair bit more complicated than that but basically the point of the apology wasn't really about remorse or making amends; for the other person it was about control and for me it was just a survival technique. I think it's a fair bit different from the general case, especially when public apologies are involved.

> Just because someone is offended doesn't mean they're right.

I don't think "right" is the way to put it at all. Even if we can say someone is or isn't right to be offended, I don't think it really matters. If you truly feel bad about somebody being offended, does whether or not you think they're "right" to be so really affect whether you feel bad about being a partial cause for that state? Or is it more that whether or not you deem them "right" really affects whether you feel bad about them being offended in the first place? That's not rhetorical; I'm genuinely curious but my expectation is that it's the latter. And note that for this I'm trying to differentiate between "feel bad about how they feel" and the sort of "feel bad about having to deal with this situation of them acting offended" I alluded to above.

I'm usually pretty good at empathy and understanding others' viewpoints but maybe some people are different enough from me in a way I'm having difficulty comprehending because I cannot imagine a situation where an action I take causes somebody to feel bad and where I genuinely feel bad about their feelings but I don't regret my role in causing that state. And I'm all too familiar with cases where somebody might have to apologise when they don't mean it but very, very few where they wouldn't benefit from trying to act sincere about it.

[TeMPOraL]

> 'm not sure how you handled the experience or what the general case is but I remember for me, for a while I was genuinely sorry for hurting them every time and then it eventually switched over to me just wanting to say whatever it took to stop the episode. It's actually a fair bit more complicated than that but basically the point of the apology wasn't really about remorse or making amends; for the other person it was about control and for me it was just a survival technique.

For me the relationship ended basically the day after I refused to apologize again, because at this point the pattern went to ridiculous extreme; apologizing then would require me to explicitly lie to myself about what I believe is true, and I do value truth very much.

> If you truly feel bad about somebody being offended, does whether or not you think they're "right" to be so really affect whether you feel bad about being a partial cause for that state? Or is it more that whether or not you deem them "right" really affects whether you feel bad about them being offended in the first place?

I say (or do) something. The other party gets offended. I will feel bad regardless of who is "right". The situation sucks, yes, but I care about feelings and internal emotional state of others much more. Can't help it, empathy turns itself on automatically. I feel compelled to resolve the issue as soon as possible not just because there's someone angry in front of me, but because I genuinely feel bad about causing them to feel bad. That's my weak spot that was used to take advantage of me once.

I worked hard for that experience to not destroy my empathy. Instead, I settled on following defense mechanism: if I start to feel that someone is playing me this way on purpose, I pause the situation and calmly but explicitly note that I feel I'm being emotionally manipulated and do not wish for it to continue. So far it only happened once, and the person involved backed down immediately, and the problem did not occur again with them.

Public apology situations are usually different than private ones, but the manipulative element can be still present. Looking at Twitter outrages in particular, it's more often present than not - probably due to the fact that the most outraged people are the ones who have absolutely nothing to do with the issue. Here, outrage is far too often used as a tool to control the words and actions of the accused party.