Teen Vogue editor-in-chief appointee cancelled before day one over ten year old tweets

[Angra Mainyu]

Instead, when this happens, we sit down and have an honest conversation: about what happened, how I feel about it, and most importantly what I'm doing to right those wrongs. And it's enough. At least, it always has been up until now. We move on, and usually on a much more even footing than we were on before the question was asked. This sort of thing irritates people like Trausti, because I'm de facto voluntarily accepting responsibility for something when I don't have to.

Is that what irritates him?
I do not know, but maybe. What do you mean by "accepting responsibility"? The answer may well depend on that one. You do not believe you are at fault, clearly. So, what is it that you accept? Do you think you have an obligation to do what? And do you think your obligations would be different if some of your ancestors hadn't behaved badly?

But fundamentally, if you were a student of minority background, who can no more escape their families' past and legacy any more than I can escape mine, who would you rather have for a professor? Trausti, or myself?

To address that question, I need more info. I can think of a person who is a student of a "minority background", and make a probabilistic assessment on the basis of what I can read from the US. They would very probably prefer you. But that person is not I. So, how much of me is left in the scenario to make that assessment? (i.e., how much am I changed in the scenario by the assumption of the "minority background") (of course, I am a member of a many different minorities one could define, but not the minorities that matter politically).

Being questioned over the past may not always be, strictly speaking, fair. But it's part of social life, and objecting, let alone going into dramatics and slinging accusations of your own around, only drags things out and makes the consequences worse than if you'd just been honest and ready for dialogue in the first place.

But once you are being unjustly accused, justly accusing your accusers of accusing you unjustly is a proper reply. Of course, if they have too much power because, say, the dominant ideology backs them up, it may be better to pragmatically yield and try to avoid further accusations even with fake apologies.

All of this, in a more mature generation, used to be what "apologizing" meant. At least, that's what my mother taught me when I was a kid. She would never let us just petulantly say "sorry" and demand the the other person immediately move on; the matter wasn't resolved until you agreed with the injured party about how to make things better in the future. And I'm grateful for that. It took a while for the lesson to sink in, but it has served me well so far in life.

That's fine when you are at fault, yes. But an apology is fake (i.e. insincere ) if you do not believe yourself to be at fault. Of course, a fake apology when facing unjust demands of an apology may be rational if the people making unjust demands are too powerful, e.g., if they can get you fired with protests or worse.