[admash]

The request for forgiveness is indicative of the desire to restore the relationship, as the other steps can be fulfilled in the absence of that desire.

The capacity of such a request to be manipulative is dependent on first, the sincerity of the desire, and second, on the degree to which the injured party feels compelled to forgive. We do a disservice in the extent that we inculcate an expectation that a request for forgiveness must be granted, as coerced or compelled forgiveness is not meaningful as it does not represent a restoration of the relationship that was damaged.

[DoreenMichele]

Maybe in a private apology between two people, that works. In a public apology, it's typically performative BS that puts the person on the spot and imposes on them to find some socially acceptable response rather than giving them room to sort their feelings and draw their own conclusions.

I think it also depends on the severity of the offense. I think if someone murdered someone beloved by the person to whom they are apologizing or raped someone or ruined their career, it would also be gauche to impose and ask forgiveness.

Forgiveness is a gift. I don't think it is appropriate to demand a gift, especially if you have done someone egregious harm.

[admash]

"I don't think it is appropriate to demand a gift," -- I agree completely, hence the use of the term "request".

But I would suggest that rather than making the effort to hinder what may be a genuine attempt at the restoration of a relationship, we should instead seek to help people recognize that forgiveness is voluntary, and that they have every right to decline extending forgiveness if harmed.

To use your phrase, we need to make it a socially acceptable response to deny forgiveness.

Better that forgiveness be rare and sincere, than common and meaningless.

[DoreenMichele]

The problem is that navigating all that in a public setting is compounded by the fact that it is public. When you make it public, for whatever reason, you must navigate not only your side as an individual and their side as an individual but the reactions of a large number of other people.

If they denied forgiveness in the first five minutes because they were hurt, many other people will reinforce their choice and actively make it difficult for them to sincerely change their mind.

At best, we can suggest that it should be socially acceptable to neither accept nor deny the apology and to not comment at all on the matter of forgiveness. But I think a public apology implicitly is a request for forgiveness and can be understood as such without a public request for forgiveness.

That's how I would handle it.

I used to write a lot of very sincere, public apologies on a small email list of a few hundred people because I was very ill and on a lot of medication and in a lot of pain and frequently not sleeping well. I certainly did not mean to offend anyone.

I wrote my apology. I explained what I had been trying to say if I felt it had been misinterpreted. I took responsibility for hurting them. I tried to write in a way that remedied that hurt.

The result was that I became the list scapegoat. If someone actively picked on me and I gave push back, then other people were all "There she goes again!"

I have probably more experience than average writing sincere and heartfelt public apologies. This is an informed opinion and it isn't going to change.

I always hated seeing on list apologies that ended with a request for forgiveness. They were consistently shitty behavior that boiled down to trying to save face and demand that the person they had wronged should make them feel okay about their sense of embarrassment. It was always an awful thing to witness.

Edited because autocorrect borked something.

[admash]

Thank you for a well-reasoned response. I respect the depth of your experience and find much of what you say to be persuasive. I will endeavor to factor it into my viewpoint on the topic going forward.