[krapp]

Anonymity isn't forgiveness, it's simply avoiding consequence. Forgiveness is a real world social transaction that can only be granted to real world identities, which presupposes an awareness on the part of the offending person and a willingness to change their behavior.

>Sure von Braun worked for the enemy, but the U.S. needed his expertise and therefore gave him amnesty. Same for Unit 741, Hirohito, etc. in Japan.

The US didn't forgive Von Braun and Japanese scientists, they simply chose to look the other way out of expediency, because the evils of the Axis had become a commodity for the Allies. That's a subtle but important distinction.

[password11]

Sorry I edited out all the discussions about WW2. Assumed this was a dead thread and it was safe if I did it quickly. I'll edit this and address them here... please forgive me.

Edit:

> The US didn't forgive Von Braun and Japanese scientists, they simply chose to look the other way out of expediency, because the evils of the Axis had become a commodity for the Allies. That's a subtle but important distinction.

Right -- you're making the distinction, between forgiveness in the sense of amnesty, and forgiveness as a ritualized, cultural, and Christian purification concept. Von Braun and Unit 731 received amnesty-forgiveness. Hirohito received ritual-forgiveness.

> Anonymity isn't forgiveness

Anonymity is forgiveness in the first sense.

GP was concerned with "the Cancelled" receiving both types of forgiveness. Anonymity only provides amnesty-forgiveness. It's up to you to reconcile that with the fact you don't receive ritual-forgiveness (and have to be ok with mere amnesty). Probably explains why most anonymous folks on the internet are so anti-establishment, because in this sense it (i.e., placing little value on ritual forgiveness) is a requirement to accept being a real person inhabiting an anonymous identity.

[notfunnyrando]

> Anonymity isn't forgiveness, it's simply avoiding consequence. Forgiveness is a real world social transaction that can only be granted to real world identities, which presupposes an awareness on the part of the offending person and a willingness to change their behavior.

why the necessity of changing the behavior of them who receive the forgiveness?

the requirement of having a "willingness to change their behavior" tickles my funny sense (it raises a warning flag from me) because it prepares a bridge (a connection, a pathway) to control by means of forgiving which does not feel correct to me.

but I'm still trying to understand the general concept of forgiveness.

I agree that anonymity is not exactly forgiveness in principle. but functionally, and on the internet, something similar is accomplished by anonymity and by social forgiveness in real-world interaction.

Maybe the main difference between anonymity online and face-to-face forgiveness is the awareness of the actors involved? with anonymity you're not really forgiving anybody personally because you don't know who they are; this is reminiscent of how we don't have to 'forgive' the ground if we ever trip and get hit in the knees by the ground or something.

but the functional contribution of both forgiveness and online anonymity is a capacity to absorb mistakes. to withhold (or delay) the application of "justice" (but in practice it's usually some sort of revenge or token scapegoating) because it does make sense to do it like this.

but this is not trivial to explain; hence the complexity around explaining (and understanding) the principles of forgiveness....

keeps thinking

[jfengel]

"Forgiveness" seems to be at least two separate but related things.

1. A willingness not to dwell on the past.

2. A relief from a sense that the past is causing present harms.

(1) applies largely to the person doing the forgiving, and (2) to the person being forgiven, but they are intertwined.

The "necessity of changing the behavior" affects both. If the behavior is still going on, then it doesn't matter if they've been forgiven for past transgressions. And if the person desires to believe that the past isn't still causing harm, then continuing to cause that harm undermines that.

You can frame it as a devious matter of "control" if you want, but we're talking about a conflict here. The person granting forgiveness wants a thing to change. They don't suddenly have omnipotent power to enforce that change. They merely have a way of framing the question.

If you don't care to be forgiven, there's nothing that can be done. If you have caused harm and don't mind continuing to be harm, then the second part of my formulation simply doesn't apply to you.

It leaves the first half, and they can do their best. It will almost certainly involve removing themselves from the situation, as best they can. That can have consequences for the person doing the harm, and if that matters to them they may reconsider. But that's not a magical control over them.