What does "redemption" look like to you?

[kiminky]

Not the best title, but this is something I struggle with in today's society of "cancel culture" and my values/beliefs. When has enough time passed or someone done enough good works or apologized enough to atone for their past misdeeds? I am primarily referring to people in the public eye. So many public figures have made past missteps, some are huge, some are very long ago, many (or all) they may have apologized for.

I know there are many, typically white male public figures who have done a lot of horrible things (I'm thinking Louis C.K.) and have slowly infiltrated their way back into to mainstream society.

But what I guess I am asking, what is your litmus test to extend another chance? I hope I am making sense and explained what is in my head properly.

[underwaterrhymes]

For me it depends on if they’re saying sorry because it’s affecting their career or if they’re demonstrating they’ve learned something and are legitimately trying to do better.

We’ve all said things we wish we hadn’t. Where the difference comes in is not just in our words but when we actually make strides to be a better person.

[basilosaurus]

I was thinking about this fairly recently with Al Franken.

He apologized, and he resigned. Kind of disappeared from public notice for awhile.

He then did a guest host of daily show which I enjoyed. Which made me question myself as he's funny and on point with his criticisms.

But, then I've recently seen people defending his "joke" and getting canceled, like it's a hypocrisy thing.

I want his angry and powerful voice. And, if in that culture, that "joke" was acceptable, I accept his repentance, especially since he resigned so quickly.

What I don't accept are these assholes who say they've never done anything wrong and have nothing to apologize for. My memory is long. Andrew is forever horrible, and by defending him, so is the rbf

[wambam]

I also struggle with this. I can’t give a specific example, but I’ve seen sincere-sounding apologies and what they’ve done to rectify the harm they’ve done and the comments section is like “not good enough, rot in hell.” I really believe people can change and see what they’ve done wrong and grow from it. I’m obviously not talking about egregious crimes, but when someone does/says something offensive, I think the world at large is quick to shun them forever. It’s definitely worse online than IRL.

[waverly]

I think this question is more interesting in the private relationships area (family, SO, friends). I guess I don’t expect much from a public figure because I don’t know them. I’m not personally accepting or rejecting them because it’s more of a how they present themselves in the media or how culture as a whole interprets it. I can still have opinions, but I am not swaying mass opinion with them. And if it is something they said online I don’t always know about it or hear about it. Somethings are very egregious and in the news and there may not be redemption instead their actions might result in a prison sentence like Weinstein. It’s easier to come back if it’s more that they misspoke rather than hate speech.

[redheadbaker]

I agree that it depends on how sincere they sound, and what their motivation is.

But if someone says something homophobic, transphobic, anti-Semitic, etc., I don't think anyone in those targeted groups should ever be expected to forgive the person, no matter how sincere the apology.

[sporklemotion]

This is a good question. I think, for me, time elapsed and actions matter. I also would consider the context around the initial transgression if a person has seemingly “evolved” and the extent to which the person has apologized. I’d consider how members of the hurt community view the person as well.
I struggle with Al Franken— I was 100% on board with his resignation, but now I’m not as outraged. But he didn’t mistreat me.
I can’t let go of Prince Harry’s Nazi costume (I’m Jewish), but it seems like lots of people are ok chalking it up to youth, etc. I don’t follow royal stuff much, though.
Joy Reid is someone I also struggle with— she had some anti LGBT posts a few years ago and it seems like she didn’t really own up to them when they came out. I liked and admired her, but I’d want to hear from people she disparaged to see whether her turn around seems authentic.

[erbear]

For me, it’s about a sincere apology and doing some work to learn for real (not for show, not because people are watching). That said, I’m not sure you can come back for me with some things, ever. But there has to be room in life to make a mistake, learn from it, apologize to those you harmed, and do better.

[eddy]

@@@
Age is also something I consider. I think under 18 should have the opportunity to redeem themselves especially if it is not a crime.

[AJL]

Generally I can't get behind most cancelling of anyone. If the person in question continues to stick to their severely problematic beliefs (I'm looking at you JK Rowling and other TERFs), then I'm not interested in entertaining their attempts at redemption.

If someone is getting cancelled for something that was unearthed from years or decades before and they were not continuing that behavior any more and they'd already apologized for it, then it's water under the bridge. Most people are cancellable by today's incredibly severe standards (myself and likely all of use here included. I know I'll catch flak for that) and I'm likely to give most people the benefit of the doubt because we fuck up. Sometimes really severely.

I find it super unfair to cancel someone who did something "cancel-worthy" in their youth or young adulthood; I tend to give folks the benefit of the doubt a lot.

[basilosaurus]

Ajl, I agree we're all probably cancelable if you look at history. Most of us probably used "that's so gay" as an insult in our 90s youth for instance. I know I repeated things older generations said in my presence that I don't specifically remember but we're undoubtedly awful

As a general culture we've come a long way from our youth, our parents' youth and their parents. And that's all for the better.

"Know better do better" comes to mind. There was a time when it was possible not to know. That time is in the distant past. Doubling down terfs can fuck right off.

I accept there's horrible locker room and board room talk that's considered acceptable that isn't changing soon, so people make inappropriate "jokes" in that context whether or not it reflects their personal views. But bragging about grabbing pussy again and again and again (and a whole audience laughing about it) is entirely unforgivable.

The bare minimum of something said it written 20 years ago is apologize, don't repeat, move on. Repeating and defending in 2023 a la jkr, fuck off and go to hades.

[basilosaurus]

On a personal level, I have unfortunate experience.

I received an apology letter of sorts from my apoptive mom (age 11, bio dad, all desired). It included the line "I love you but" Nothing after but is good! Repeated attempts at resolution in the months and years following just made it so much worse which I won't recite sordid details. There is no possible redemption from based on history. There theoretically can be, and I want there to be for dad's sake mostly as I'm the only living daughter, but, no. It won't happen.

In some cases history predicts future, possibly getting worse. Trump didn't get applause bragging about assault in 2016. He does now.

[bronxgirl]

May 13, 2023 19:19:20 GMT -5 AJL said:

Generally I can't get behind most cancelling of anyone. If the person in question continues to stick to their severely problematic beliefs (I'm looking at you JK Rowling and other TERFs), then I'm not interested in entertaining their attempts at redemption.

If someone is getting cancelled for something that was unearthed from years or decades before and they were not continuing that behavior any more and they'd already apologized for it, then it's water under the bridge. Most people are cancellable by today's incredibly severe standards (myself and likely all of use here included. I know I'll catch flak for that) and I'm likely to give most people the benefit of the doubt because we fuck up. Sometimes really severely.

I find it super unfair to cancel someone who did something "cancel-worthy" in their youth or young adulthood; I tend to give folks the benefit of the doubt a lot.

100%

[wise_rita]

May 13, 2023 19:19:20 GMT -5 AJL said:

Generally I can't get behind most cancelling of anyone. If the person in question continues to stick to their severely problematic beliefs (I'm looking at you JK Rowling and other TERFs), then I'm not interested in entertaining their attempts at redemption.

If someone is getting cancelled for something that was unearthed from years or decades before and they were not continuing that behavior any more and they'd already apologized for it, then it's water under the bridge. Most people are cancellable by today's incredibly severe standards (myself and likely all of use here included. I know I'll catch flak for that) and I'm likely to give most people the benefit of the doubt because we fuck up. Sometimes really severely.

I find it super unfair to cancel someone who did something "cancel-worthy" in their youth or young adulthood; I tend to give folks the benefit of the doubt a lot.

I don't think this is true.  If old yearbook photos of someone wearing blackface years ago surfaces somebody is branded a lifelong racist, even if that is not true.

sporklemotion The world has given Prince Harry a gigantic pass on that.  I didn't read it, but didn't he try to blame it on William in his book?  

I don't even remember what Al Franken did, but I vaguely remember it was a single sexist (or sexual) joke - not assault or anything like that.  I remember at the time thinking that this could be opening the door for so so so much worse, i.e. getting a Republican into that seat.  It's Minnesota, after all.  Talk about perfect being the enemy of good.  Thankfully that fear did not materialize.

[sporklemotion]

wise_rita, I also haven’t read Harry’s book, but I believe he is either saying that it was Will’s idea or that Will encouraged it. Either way, I’m not sure I buy it, tbh.

Al Franken was accused of inappropriate touching/groping of women at USO shows and in other entertainment contexts. It seems as if he was sort of gross and overly aggressive with women. Not something to rise to prolonged harassment or assault, but definitely unacceptable (at least, from what I read). Maybe not extreme for the time/place/context, but I’m not sure that’s enough to excuse it? I struggle with it because I don’t think it should be justified by the time or place, but I also wonder if it’s something he can/should come back from given some of the contextual factors.

[AJL]

May 14, 2023 13:11:00 GMT -5 wise_rita said:

May 13, 2023 19:19:20 GMT -5 AJL said:

Generally I can't get behind most cancelling of anyone. If the person in question continues to stick to their severely problematic beliefs (I'm looking at you JK Rowling and other TERFs), then I'm not interested in entertaining their attempts at redemption.

If someone is getting cancelled for something that was unearthed from years or decades before and they were not continuing that behavior any more and they'd already apologized for it, then it's water under the bridge. Most people are cancellable by today's incredibly severe standards (myself and likely all of use here included. I know I'll catch flak for that) and I'm likely to give most people the benefit of the doubt because we fuck up. Sometimes really severely.

I find it super unfair to cancel someone who did something "cancel-worthy" in their youth or young adulthood; I tend to give folks the benefit of the doubt a lot.

I don't think this is true.  If old yearbook photos of someone wearing blackface years ago surfaces somebody is branded a lifelong racist, even if that is not true.

sporklemotion The world has given Prince Harry a gigantic pass on that.  I didn't read it, but didn't he try to blame it on William in his book?  

I don't even remember what Al Franken did, but I vaguely remember it was a single sexist (or sexual) joke - not assault or anything like that.  I remember at the time thinking that this could be opening the door for so so so much worse, i.e. getting a Republican into that seat.  It's Minnesota, after all.  Talk about perfect being the enemy of good.  Thankfully that fear did not materialize.

You're right. It's not water under the bridge in the public eye. I meant for my personal definition of redemption, it would be water under the bridge. 

[AJL]

May 13, 2023 14:21:03 GMT -5 sporklemotion said:

This is a good question. I think, for me, time elapsed and actions matter. I also would consider the context around the initial transgression if a person has seemingly “evolved” and the extent to which the person has apologized. I’d consider how members of the hurt community view the person as well.
I struggle with Al Franken— I was 100% on board with his resignation, but now I’m not as outraged. But he didn’t mistreat me.
I can’t let go of Prince Harry’s Nazi costume (I’m Jewish), but it seems like lots of people are ok chalking it up to youth, etc. I don’t follow royal stuff much, though.
Joy Reid is someone I also struggle with— she had some anti LGBT posts a few years ago and it seems like she didn’t really own up to them when they came out. I liked and admired her, but I’d want to hear from people she disparaged to see whether her turn around seems authentic.

I'm also Jewish and I'm kind of like "what a fucking idiot" and have let it go. And I think it's OK if you can't forgive him for it.