Forced Apologies

[BluEiis]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/SHOWBIZ/cele...ogy/index.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/me...y-2293192.html

I don't think it is right for anyone to be forced to make a public apology. It's nothing but a humiliation tactic, and in my opinion it is a form of bullying. I'm not saying Tracy Morgan was right in what he said, but making him apologize publicly isn't about to solve anything. Especially when you consider the fact that an apology does not mean the person is sorry. Also, don't even get me started in Naomi Campbell and this story. She took the ad far too personally, and in the wrong way. The ad never said "Chocolate diva" it said "diva"... It had absolutely nothing to do with race. Also, if such an ad campaign came up saying "Move over Heidi Klum there's a new diva in town" for a white chocolate bar, no one would say a thing. But that's an entirely different rant

[BethanyAnn]

LOVE THIS AGREED

[Harmony♥]

Hey Indigo,
I have to say that I agree with you. Sometimes we say things that we don't mean to say in public. They just happen to come out of our mouths, whether we are thinking about saying out loud or not. I didn't read the articles; I didn't have too. I got the gist of the situation by your post.
While forced apologies are definitely some form of bullying, and they do humiliate people, that person should decide whether or not he wants to make it a public apology. They should have a choice whether or not to come out with an 'I'm sorry public for what I said'. That being said, Naomi Campbell definitely took that ad a little too seriously. It was just an ad, but she pretty much wants all public attention on her anyway. Let's not forget the cell phone throwing situation a couple of years ago (or was it longer).
Loved this post

[Neon]

Tracy Morgan said that to be funny. They obviously aren't very familiar with him as a stand up if they think he was serious. If people are offended by the joke then guess what, that's the point. It's a shock laugh, that's what kind of comedian he is. Why is it okay for a comedian to joke about 9/11, the Holocaust, or anything else offensive, but not this? Simply because GLAAD has more power in Hollywood than other groups? Of course he didn't mean a forced apology - if he didn't do it he would have lost his job at 30 Rock. The fact that he is being forced to go through sensitivity training is a joke.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

From the song Sound of Madness by Shinedown, there are three sentences/lines that accurately describe what is sometimes needed instead of patting people on the head nicely fueling over-sensitivity:

"No one owes you anything. I think you need a shotgun blast, A kick in the ass"

The second link didn't contain anything offensive, someone should not need to apologize because others have an over-sensitivity and put words in the person's mouth. Anytime I hear someone cry and moan for an apology, I cant help but think it is so infantile in nature. Even after Cadbury apologized, the person still wasn't satisfied as they felt it took too long, whining as though they wanted an apology for not apologizing soon enough. Ridiculous.

In regards to the first link, the top video on the left-hand side had Joel Gray said something that I think explains much of this need for public apologies, "in this sensitive age". The second link has Jim Breuer give a statement I agree with, in saying the tone in which Tracy Morgan said those lines gave the humour. When the reporters say the line, they completely decontextualize it and ignore the tone in which he said it. The way Breuer said it, I was laughing, I found it pretty funny. I think that GLAAD probably didn't hear Morgan's funny tone and like others in the first video, gave no Morgan no chance to explain himself. They whined away, didn't hear/understand his funny tone and jumped on the band-wagon. Also, as Breuer alluded, Morgan is a comedian, he's going to stretch some bounds but I'm sure many didn't consider any of this, so they whined like the rest.

"Sensitivity training", to me is a fucking joke, especially when said that Tracy Morgan needs it. People don't like his style of comedy, fine, no problem but let the man be how he is, bunch of over-sensitive clowns, it's truly revolting.

My philosophy is even if someone is offended by something I say, I have no obligation to apologize to them. Saying "sorry I hurt your feelings" doesn't negate what happened and when forced, it need not involve any sympathy. When done in public to a large audience, it adds humiliation to the person (which is not necessary) and forces you to say something to paint a pretty picture over what happened, forcing you to make others happy. It's all around over-sensitivity and forced apologies only fuels over-sensitivity. People should be able to handle what happened but when they want a forced apology, it indicates that even with the apology, they still cannot handle what happened, they just want a bland statement to pretend you actually give a rat's ass they're emotionally hurt.

[Casey.]

I'm not sure. I mean, forcing someone to apologize doesn't really accomplish anything, but if they realize that what they said/did hurt several people and they want to apologize, then there shouldn't be a problem with that. I'm gay but hearing a comedian talk shit about gay people doesn't bother me, because he's a comedian. At least, not as part of his act. Otherwise, I can understand being offended but it's really up to him if he wants to apologize for what he said or not. He shouldn't be forced to.

[Mythic]

Someone should apologize if they are remorseful and regretful of their words and/or actions. That's the only way a sincere apology can come forth.

A forced apology under any circumstances, be it a public figure in Hollywood or politics, or a small child who hit another child, has no real or substantial meaning to it. An older, more mature person who has a full understanding of intention, sincerity and forgiveness can and should be able to choose whether or not he/she apologizes, based on whether or not there is any true remorse felt. If they want to stand by their statements, let them, and they can be judged for them all the same. We have freedom of thought, speech and opinion, and we shouldn't force an idea of what's "acceptable" on someone who is so resolute in their ideas.

[Kate*]

Forced apologies are just that, forced. If you aren't really sorry then you shouldn't bother apologizing because most people will know that you're only doing it because you have to and that you don't really mean it. I think this applies to everyone, not just celebrities. People know a sincere appology when they hear one.

[dr2005]

I'm going to tackle this in two halves, because I think there are two separate issues arising in these incidents which directly affect how sympathetic I am towards the demands for an apology or the perceived need to make one.

Regarding Tracy Morgan, I'll start off by saying I'm a big fan of stand-up comedy and a lot of it is pretty close to the bone and could cause a lot of offence if taken out of context. However, there are also some statements which, irrespective of context, will cause offence even if you don't intend it. The one that stands out for me in the Tracy Morgan incident is the remark that he would kill his son if he found out he was gay - I fully appreciate Jim Bruer's (quite right) remarks about this being off the cuff and sometimes things are said without thinking, but that's something which is never going to be that funny and will offend people, and not just the uber-sensitive. In that context, I feel he was right to make an apology and to hold his hands up over the incident. I would add however that some of the hounding is a little distasteful.

Regarding the Cadbury advert, I do feel this was a case of someone looking for a reason to be offended by it. I certainly wouldn't have drawn the connection between the chocolate and Naomi Campbell's skin colour, and I like to think of myself as being a well-educated, culturally aware person. When I first saw the advert, the first thing I thought of was her diva reputation and while I thought the claim of a chocolate bar being a diva was a bit "meh" it did make me smile briefly. To therefore claim that it was a racist attack on her is something I, with respect, find absurd. Cadbury is based in Birmingham, one of the most ethnically diverse and multicultural cities in the UK, and I very much doubt they would go out of their way to offend simply because the local backlash would decimate them. It's also been pointed out elsewhere that Campbell did a photoshoot posed on a chocolate Playboy bunny head, yet I do not recall any complaints about the association then and hence feel this is somewhat hypocritical. As such, I feel that while they should have perhaps made a private apology for offence caused, being forced to make a public apology in this manner was a step too far. I'm also not impressed with Campbell claiming this was down to a lack of diversity on managerial level as opposed to her taking offence at being made fun of.

So, as you can tell I'm a bit split on this one.

[emma01]

Forced apologies are stupid, because you hear someone apologise, the next day you hear it was forced, and your opinions have not changed what-so-ever.
If someone was genuinely sorry for what they did - they would apologise without being asked. Then, and only then would the apology mean anything - in my opinion anyway.

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

For the Cadbury issue, do you feel Campbell has justification to whine and groan that the apology took too long to be issued? Or, does it not matter how long it took because the apology was given? Lastly, do you think Cadbury took too long to issue the apology?

Originally Posted by dr2005

Regarding Tracy Morgan, I'll start off by saying I'm a big fan of stand-up comedy and a lot of it is pretty close to the bone and could cause a lot of offence if taken out of context. However, there are also some statements which, irrespective of context, will cause offence even if you don't intend it. The one that stands out for me in the Tracy Morgan incident is the remark that he would kill his son if he found out he was gay - I fully appreciate Jim Bruer's (quite right) remarks about this being off the cuff and sometimes things are said without thinking, but that's something which is never going to be that funny and will offend people, and not just the uber-sensitive. In that context, I feel he was right to make an apology and to hold his hands up over the incident. I would add however that some of the hounding is a little distasteful.

I may be in the minority here but just the way Tracy Morgan speaks is often funny, the distasteful attitude he somehow makes comical. In that sense, saying he would kill his son if he found out he was gay, would be funny given how Morgan says it. I agree the hounding is rather disgusting because even when an apology is issued, the hounding on such things tends to continue, especially when most of it is out of context.

I agree with some of the hounding in that Morgan's attitude appeared to suddenly change from "usual-Morgan" to "angry-for-no-reason-funny-Morgan". I think the poor transition made many people confused but at the same time, he's a stand-up comedian, he's going to push the boundaries like it or not.

[BasicFacts]

This is relevant, and makes a really great point: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAmazi.../7/EJxCPiChtPI