If he is apologising for things he knows he has done wrong, then he must know the details of the accusations
He wrote “I appreciate that there were other interactions that made people uncomfortable and where details have not been shared with me.” You are suggesting that he lied while being supervised by the CEA who did this whole thing? That wouldn’t make any sense. CEA practically wrote this post.
If he does not know the details, why is he apologising?
Because if he doesn’t then CEA and/or other actors will punish him more severely.
I’m saying he must have some idea of what the allegations are otherwise it wouldn’t make sense for him to apologise.
To be clear is your view is that this is likely or with some non-negligible probability, not a real apology, and he is not actually acknowledging wrongdoing?
I’m saying he must have some idea of what the allegations are otherwise it wouldn’t make sense for him to apologise.
Why? It makes sense for him to apologize as long as CEA demands that he apologize.
To be clear is your view is that this is likely or with some non-negligible probability, not a real apology, and he is not actually acknowledging wrongdoing?
There are no Real Apologies, it is naive to think otherwise and toxic to demand otherwise. Of course he is acknowledging wrongdoing, and he is acknowledging wrongdoing because he is being pressured to acknowledge wrongdoing. How much wrongdoing actually happened is largely unknown to us.
There are no Real Apologies, it is naive to think otherwise and toxic to demand otherwise. Of course he is acknowledging wrongdoing, and he is acknowledging wrongdoing because he is being pressured to acknowledge wrongdoing.
What are you talking about? There’s a clear difference between apologizing because one sincerely believes one acted wrongly, and apologizing only because one thinks the consequences will be graver if one fails to apologize. I am puzzled by your apparent failure to recognize this difference.
I stand by it.
He wrote “I appreciate that there were other interactions that made people uncomfortable and where details have not been shared with me.” You are suggesting that he lied while being supervised by the CEA who did this whole thing? That wouldn’t make any sense. CEA practically wrote this post.
Because if he doesn’t then CEA and/or other actors will punish him more severely.
I’m saying he must have some idea of what the allegations are otherwise it wouldn’t make sense for him to apologise.
To be clear is your view is that this is likely or with some non-negligible probability, not a real apology, and he is not actually acknowledging wrongdoing?
Why? It makes sense for him to apologize as long as CEA demands that he apologize.
There are no Real Apologies, it is naive to think otherwise and toxic to demand otherwise. Of course he is acknowledging wrongdoing, and he is acknowledging wrongdoing because he is being pressured to acknowledge wrongdoing. How much wrongdoing actually happened is largely unknown to us.
What are you talking about? There’s a clear difference between apologizing because one sincerely believes one acted wrongly, and apologizing only because one thinks the consequences will be graver if one fails to apologize. I am puzzled by your apparent failure to recognize this difference.