McCammond’s 2019 “apology” was along the lines of “sorry you’re offended”, not “I’m sorry for what I said”.
How much did you do at 17 that you aren't proud of today?
Not that much. For sure I made some mistakes, as I continue to do, but I'd stand by what I did at 17. I didn't (for example) write down plainly racist statements and then publish them on the internet. I didn't do anything comparable to that.
What were y'all doing at 17?
Mostly really awkward attempts at being sexually active. Surely some of it cancelable. Just like most other 17 year olds.
(Is suffering indoctrination shameful? And, as you say, that is not unique to 17 year olds.)
“I am so sorry to have used such hurtful and inexcusable language. At any point in my life, it’s totally unacceptable.” Backlash against her initial comments seem to be that she characterized her tweets as insensitive rather than using the word racist, which seems important but certainly pedantic.
What she said in 2019 when it first came out was
https://twitter.com/alexi/status/1197290613701513217
> Today I was reminded of some past insensitive tweets, and I am deeply sorry to anyone I offended. I have since deleted those tweets as they do not reflect my views or who I am today.
"some past insensitive tweets" as a euphemism for racist tweets
"I am deeply sorry *to anyone I offended.*" (my emphasis with asterisks) => sorry if you were offended
So when it first came out, she gave the least amount of effort necessary to make it go away. Only when it threatened her plum new job did she offer anything simulating genuine remorse.
yes
> However how should she have worded the appology?
"I am deeply sorry" would have been good. Or, "I am deeply sorry for < some variation of "what I said" or "my racist tweets">".
I'm don't agree with
> the former is a direct apology and admittance of wrongdoing towards another on her part
When I read "sorry to anyone I offended", it is not an unconditional apology. She is not apologizing for what she did. She is apologizing *to those she offended*.
Which is to say she is apologizing not for what she did but for the offense she caused.
There is a crucial difference there. The former is taking responsibility for what she said. The latter, at best, makes no comment on whether or not what she said was wrong; at worst, makes a comment that what she did was not wrong but that she is only sorry because people took umbrage with it. From her words alone, we know she thinks what she said was "insensitive" and that she is apologizing to those that are "offended". If she's only acknowledging that her words are insensitive, it makes that sense she's apologizing directly to and only to those that she offended, which is why she would qualify her apology as such. This is not a statement that acknowledges that her words, in and of themselves, were wrong.
In that regard, she may not be avoiding an apology in the absolute terms, but more importantly, as in all other cases where people only apologize for the offense, she is not (at the very least directly) acknowledging that what she did was intrinsically wrong, she is merely responding to the outrage.
So you might say
> I would guess she was genuinely sorry
and you could be right, but when I read what she wrote, that does not come across.
This
> the former is a direct apology and admittance of wrongdoing towards another on her part
does not come across at all when I read
> I am deeply sorry to anyone I offended.
To get that kind of interpretation, I would have to do some mind reading instead of taking her words for what they are.