Both Nader and Hedges give good advice on being inclusive...listening...finding common ground...identifying causes in small doses. Refraining from a deluge of fact v persomal experiences n stories.
After all...the1% design these mazes to ensnare us 99%ers to divide ourselves ... which deepens the 1%'s grip on us...
Let's shine brightly while we live for future generations...soon enuf we'll be silenced by death.
Relevant lnks..
SHARING EXPERIENCES, not FACTS are what change HEARTS and MINDS http://tiny.cc/exp-vs-facts
Nader’s detailed/uplifting How to Save Amer lectures. Dive in!!
Pt1 https://youtu.be/rGtiNVSSvO8
Pt2 https://youtu.be/vhQCTv0p47s
Pt3 https://youtu.be/rOhxHlq9GME
Pt4 https://youtu.be/fg21YdbStYE
Pt5 https://youtu.be/yKRkjWKx4Kk
Pt6 https://youtu.be/ZPnzAb9XXIY
Hedges 2018 amazing farewell tour convercrises https://youtu.be/ZBcOyv8LZ8s
Hedges with Jimm Dore Oct 2018 disarming/searing 1hr interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOZ7NSuZp6s
8
Re whether to make an apology. If the ex has any idea what has transpired in the life of the person posing the question, an apology may be superfluous. My ex (I was wife #1) announced suddenly that he wanted a divorce. He is now divorced from wife #3, who wants their son to have nothing to do with his two older sons from wife #2. My #2 and I have recently celebrated 20 years married, and 25 years together. It was not me, it was Mr. Ex, and his life since makes that readily apparent. I don’t care to hear anything from him, I am much better off with him gone. The poster’s ex may feel the same.
47
I think an apology from the distant past might be welcome. She might want to reconsider doing so.
A brief letter that states "this doesn't require any response from you whatsoever" might be best.
If I was that man, I would welcome this. If my ex from 20 years ago sent me a letter of apology for his actions (they were legion and many) I would welcome it and respond in the spirit it was sent in.
89
I find extreme and hateful views on both sides of the political spectrum. I'd eliminate the "right-wing" from "right-wing radio station" part of the advice. Maybe divisive would be a better word choice. My nature is to "seek first to understand, then to be understood", but in this political climate, I lean toward a new manta "Unfollow first, and change the subject when necessary". I've had success with "I get where your coming from, but I don't want to hear it". This eliminates the persons desire to sway me with their words.
62
I think your advice to the former brother in law is bad advice. People with the mindset he has cannot be reasoned with. You can change the minds of people at the center, or wavering in their opinions, but not people deeply entrenched on a side, especially if they have a financial stake in promoting them, as he does, on the radio. Anything said to him will provoke a fight. It's better just to let a relationship die quietly than to murder it with anger and hurt feelings.
214
Some years after I broke off with him, I received an apology from an ex-partner. In making the overture, I could see--by the pain in my ex-partner's face--that he had carried a lot of shame and remorse around his toxic behavior. I appreciated that he was willing to own up to the harm he'd caused and wanted to make amends. I felt he sincerely cared and regretted his past behavior. His apology was truly moving and I hope him making it and me being generous in receiving it, helped him move on to see and embrace his better nature.
150
My first husband abruptly left me close to 20 years ago. I was 29. We had been together for five years. I recall falling to the floor and pretty much staying there for a year. It was devastating and I suffered greatly - at the time. Then, as it happens, I got over it. I honestly harbor no ill-will, residual pain, sadness, regret or really any feeling at all about him. He has very occasionally contacted me to inquire about my family if there’s been a nearby tragedy. I do not need an apology or any acknowledgement of any past actions on his part. If he did reach out to apologize I’d simply tell him that there is no need. He did what he thought he needed to do at the time and has perhaps suffered his own consequences. It is very sad to me that some people carry such long term grief from failed relationships and I wonder what fantasy keeps that grief alive for so long. The other day I actually caught myself thinking, “wait, what was my ex-husband’s name?!”
70
Dear Mr. Appiah, thanks very much for your column. Reading it always makes me feel better, like there's a grown-up in the room, and like we still live in a society rooted in decency and basic human kindness. Your words are much appreciated.
84
There no well phrased magical words that can change a person's political views in almost all instances I find. To have a confrontation, as suggested, invites more heated words, increased anger, and perhaps "violent action".
The rule at our home is no political discussions at family get togethers. Follow that rule. He may get bored and leave, or have more potato salad and relax.
52
In this anxious and tense day and age, I think a lot of us would benefit from giving apologies and accepting them with grace.
I started a serious relationship (in my mind) with someone who was my best friend, and eventually hurt me and left me in a hurtful and callous way. He apologized seven years later. I think I had already forgiven him by then, but his apology made it official - and it was healing.
51
I got an apology from an old boyfriend who did very hurtful things 45 years ago. It did not make me feel any better and in fact I dislike him even more now. So I say just give it up.
47
Why would you advise that person intentionally interact with someone who is toxic? The presumption that there is 'something to work out' in democratic fashion set sail with exhortations to violence. Your suggestion totally ignores the physical stress and mental anxiety that comes with being in a forced relationship with someone whose rhetoric is - by design - intended to create that state. As this is a chosen aspect his career, it's clear that former BIL deliberately pursues this path and is quite aware of the emotional impact of his 'work'. There is likely no 'middle ground' to be had here.
Congratulations: you advised the querant to stay in an abusive relationship indefinitely for the nebulous 'better good'.
Sometimes, ain't nobody got time for that in their life. This is one of them. Excise deliberate malignancy; life is too short otherwise.
343
Very well said.
63
Re ex brother in law - personally I would no longer 'engage' with him. Decline further invitations. Believe me, he'll know why.
223
After years of watching a family member cut themselves out of the family and join the alt-right, I have come to some very difficult decisions. Their views are toxic, hateful, and actively against people like myself (a Muslim woman with an immigrant fiance).
While I have tried over and again over the past several years to maintain contact because they are my family, they have refused to reply to messages and phone calls unless it is an absolute emergency. This leads to maybe one text message per year.
I spent the past year trying to decide whether or not I would invite them to my wedding even though they are my flesh and blood. I decided to extend the invitation, and after trying to contact them over a few months, found out that they plan to attend. I don't know how I feel about this, as I don't even feel safe being around them because I know that their views are so hateful, they harbor such anger, and because they collect weapons as a hobby that I don't doubt they would use if provoked. Honestly, the most difficult part of planning my entire wedding has been in trying to figure out what to do with them.
At this point, I think I have decided that I will stop trying to make any contact after my wedding and will accept that they have left my life. But it is a knife driven into my heart to lose them--both to hate and from my life.
46
@Melissa Stone Honestly, I think I'd assign a family member or friend to stick close to that person during your wedding. I'd be afraid they accepted the invitation for the sole purpose of disrupting the event to show their displeasure...
79
I recently received an email apology from a college boyfriend of 20 years ago. He said he was sorry that he treated me badly and he knew I deserved better and had always regretted the way he handled our breakup.
I appreciated the gesture. I feel better knowing he was remorseful, and I believe he feels better for having expressed it. Win/Win.
160
I don't think you're quite right about the apology issue, though 40 years is rather a long time. I left my husband suddenly, and not wanting to own my own behavior, ran as far as I could and refused to give him any closure. He was a good person and didn't deserve what I did to him, most particularly how I did it. Once things settled down, we continued to have occasional contact over the years. About five years after we divorced, he called one day to give me some news about a relative. I said, "I need to tell you something. You were not a bad husband. What I did was wrong. I was unhappy and handled it badly. It really had almost nothing to do with you. You deserved better, and I'm sorry. " He was quiet a moment, and then said " thank you, that means a lot.".
40 years is a long time to offer an apology, but the break-up of a marriage is such a monumental event that can leave us with lifelong doubts and questions. An apology, however late in coming, may offer some closure and peace.
226
A written expression of regret for one’s past behavior is never out of line, and carries no obligation for the recipient.
199
"Hateful" has gotten defined down to "I don't like what someone else says." Can we give "hate" and "racist" and "I'm offended" a rest. It's why people think we're stuck in a PC swamp.
23
@mainliner the letter-writer is pretty clear that the brother-in-law advocates violent action against people like them. It’s not just, “I don’t like what you said,” but also, “Your words could lead to people being physically harmed.”
190
Anybody who values getting an apology forty years after he or she was wronged is as needy, shallow & narcissistic as the person giving the apology.
14
@camorrista
There is a lot of real estate between being needy, shallow, & narcissistic and appreciating/valuing an apology, no matter how long since the act in question.
It might not make a world of difference to receive an apology decades after being wrong, but that doesn't mean the recipient wouldn't appreciate it as he or she would appreciate any other act of kindness.
135
Re: Ex Brother In Law
It's possible we need more context to make any sort of an assessment here. Since the letter writer mentions Alex Jones it's fairly safe to say that the ex in law leans right, but without knowing his side of the story, what he writes and why. You mentioning "this country's toxic partisanship" is assumed code for "anyone who isn't a NY Times reading, dyed in the wool liberal. We get it... right wing baaaaad... left wing gooood!
But the writer saying his thoughts are "filled with hate and even calls to violent action" is the crux of his inquiry. "Filled with hate" is ambiguous at best; hate for who/what? He hates child abusers? Puppies? "Calls to violent action" could really mean anything. Self defense? Kill the (fill in blank)s? Defend our country from terrorists?
Without any context we might be able to assume the letter writer is the extremist one in this relationship.
As to the woman seeking to apologize to her ex, this has nothing to do with her ex and her feelings of guilt. It has to do with her own narcissism. And what about her husband? Has she discussed this with him? How does he feel about his wife looking to clear the slate and make nice with her ex?
17
@Johannes de Silentio So you think she needs her husband's permission to communicate with whom she likes?
60
@Johannes de Silentio the LW literally said violence against "people like me". I'd say that's very clear.
103
Don't speak to him anymore....he probably has the same feelings toward you.
17
That's it; that's the answer: If anyone has opinions that differ the slightest from yours, cut her/him off.
Yeah: That will make for a much better US.
16
@boroka
I guess you missed the part where the writer said: "I am firmly in the category of people he is calling for violence against, along with most of my family." - That's not really in the category of 'difference of opinion' in my book.
317
@S. B. Given that statement y the LW , I don't understand the LW continuing any relationship with "ex-family member".If it was me, I'd quietly disengage and stay under the radar with the individual.
55
I don't know if you consider the use of pornography while the wife is away a form of adultery, but my guess is that the neighbor should just remind the husband to keep the volume down late at night.
31
Regarding the neighbor who was seemingly having sex while his wife is gone. Consider please the many and varied risks to her health. If you do say something and your proven wrong ie; everyone is in on it, including her, whatever than great!
However if she doesn't know and is now very sick, permanently barren, or even dying, how would you feel then about saying nothing?
I completely disagree and am still disappointed that nowadays the privacy of the supposed innocent male is more important than severe grievous harm, including death of the unknown and seemingly less important female.
31
@Katrina Illness? Death? you really have a vivid imagination, Katrina.
44
Any threat of violence should be taken seriously. Do nothing to incite the person to carry it out, meaning, keep polite distance, do not engage, especially not in political arguments. The "ethicist" could be faulted if violence occurred after this recommended meeting.
42
One cannot help but wonder why so many people need advice about problems with obvious and practical solutions. It's almost as if they're seeking permission to do what they already know is at best unwise and probably not even very ethical. I mean, use your head, people! As Dear Abby might say, "Listen to yourself!" Or, as our ethicist advises one perplexed writer, try a little "reticence."
10
Good advice on the ex-marriage. I tried to contact my ex-wife several times and never got a response. I let it go since it was only to apologize for the way I handled things. Never got a response. Don't know what she thinks I was trying to do, but you're probably right, that it would have been best to let things go.
10
@Ken I tried this apology because I thought... If I have forgiven this exhusband (I have) then why not be a better person and share my forgiveness... after all it was many many years ago and I've heard repeatedly.... don't forgive for the other person but forgive the other person for yourself. And I thought... wow he owes an apology as well so maybe I will get one back and we will both be better people as a result. No. What happened was I remembered all the reasons why I cannot stand him and it ended all over again with me telling him that his mother looks like Mr Magoo.
11
Re letter no. 2- Be a grown-up, call the loan company and inquire about the over-payment. It is the right thing to do. Another person may have made a $10,000 payment on their own student loan that was erroneously credited to you, and if you don't bring it to the loan company's attention, it could cause the other person a lot of grief down the road.
Re letter no. 3- This is why it is sometimes better to do things the old-fashioned way, like bang on the ceiling, or have a fact-to-face discussion, or at least drop a physical note at the door, rather than send a text. Because of the text, in a non-open marriage, the absent wife now knows that her husband is cheating on her, which opens a whole new can of worms. Had the neighbor banged on the ceiling with his broom-handle at the time of the indiscretion, or talked to him in the elevator, or dropped a note at the door, he might have alerted the occupants, who, as far as he knew, were the husband and wife, that the "walls have ears."
Re letter no. 4- I would apologize, not just because it would make me feel better, but it might make the other person feel better, too. Imagine how he must feel, decades down the road, wondering what he did to merit being abandoned! An apology is balm to the soul and provides both parties with closure.
24
Please apologize to your first husband. I would dearly love to hear apologies from people who have hurt me; it would help to resolve and heal past wounds. A sincere apology is unlikely to cause harm and may help.
66
To the recent graduate Name Withheld:
If you were at a restaurant, and the coat check attendant mistakenly gave you someone else's coat that had $10,000 in the pocket, would you keep it?
I have always told the law students I teach, with respect to questions of ethics, if you find yourself asking the question then you already know the answer. (You may not like it, but you do know it.)
91
@WTig3ner One's attitude toward an individual (the coat) may differ from ones attitute toward a faceless company which may be gauging you.
7
@Jenifer Wolf either way...wring to take what is not rightfully yours.
22
I would like to point out that first letter writer about the ex BIL did NOT say which side of the political spectrum the ex BIL was on. AND Mr. Appiah assumed that the ex BIL was on the right. "If most of his political discussions are in the echo chamber of social media and on a right-wing radio station...". This speaks to why our political discourse is so distorted. There is plenty of hate and threats on the left as well.
10
@EMV What about the Alex Jones comment at the end of the first paragraph in the letter? Do you confine that to the ex-BIL's state of mind? I took it to characterize ex-BIL's public opinions/radio show, i.e., far right.
In my view, the advice applies all the same -- say or ask something. Like Appiah, I feel people are too quick to jump to conclusions and "write off" people they disagree with, without even attempting to model civil discourse. (It's true that many *are* too inarticulate, too uninformed, and too consumed with anger. The two responses so far, for example, have ignored the Alex Jones reference and jumped to chip-on-the-shoulder conclusions, though I agree that that comment, too, is open to interpretation.)
21
I have been surprised by the predominant thinking in the comments that to apologize to the first husband would be selfish at best, and potentially unwelcome and hurtful to her long-ago-ex-husband. Were I the ex in this case, I would not only welcome the apology, but value it as evidence that, although it may take years, people may see the wrong they have done us and regret having hurt us. Most of us Americans are aware of 12 Step groups, even if we do not know the actual steps. I see that one is that we make a list of those we have harmed and become willing to make amends. The next step is to make the amends, when possible, except when doing so would harm that person or someone else. It seems to me nearly everyone here thinks that making amends would be detrimental to the ex-husband. I don't see it. Why the assumption that a person, who has had 40 ensuing years to process his own life's events, would be unwilling or unable to handle a sincere apology from someone he once loved?
84
@NJJ, in this old life, people have many kinds of individual experiences, outcomes, and reactions. There's reason for various responses, too, to unexpected apologies and re-awakening of past events. I guess that's the message I'd give the LW; don't be sure that what you expect is what will happen.
19
Based on the passage of time and age - that she's closer to death now, I question the intent of an apology. It appears more about her clearing her conscience instead of the original intent of apologies which is to restore a relationship. Well, maybe she is trying to restore the relationship, unintentionally. And certainly, it'd better be not for forgiveness because that's definitely not the purpose of an apology at all.
9
The letter inquiring about apologizing to a man whom the writer left long ago, disrespectfully, is an interesting one.
I am surprised that Mr. Appiah is content to stay on the level of apology, when repentance is a deeper and more healing experience. In my spiritual community we have a tradition of both personal and public repentance ceremonies. I can speak from personal experience of the deep healing a repentance, even when private, can bring. And with that healing, the mind clears of the burden of unacknowledged wrongs, though not – of course – their consequences. We all do wrong, many times during our lives. Deeply human to find that in our lives. And deeply human to go beyond apology to repentance.
After the mind is cleared of the burden of not having repented, a new clarity comes, in which the ethical, moral and responsible thing to do is clear. And that always, as Mr. Appiah says, depends on the circumstances. But simply holding one's silence is hardly ever healing or effective.
22
What I find especially hard to believe, yet it is seemingly true - that SO many apparently grown adults would need to have someone else answer many of these questions for them.
Being of the Leave it to Beav generation I do realize that the ruination of our society is somehow on us. But I really don't understand just exactly How we left so many needy people in our wakes . WHY ?
I do, however believe firmly that our parent's generation (The greatest / WW2 generation) who are mostly gone now, would be rolling in their graves to learn what a Dysfunctional Cesspool we, the Boomer generation have left. I used to think the world would be so much better off when we are all gone. But now see the even greater challenges the successive & exceedingly needy generations have going on.
That isn't to say all, just the majority of Western civilization. Don't misunderstand - the rest of the world is utterly polluted by the western influences and beyond repair I fear.
Yes, a dark dark view, but who could believe any other way after reading "The Ethicist" more than once ?
8
@Dheep P'It isn't unusual for adults to seek help with personal issues through the print/electronic media.
Ann Landers and Dear Abby had huge followings in their advice columns.
I was an editorial assistant to Ann Landers (Eppie Lederer) during the early '60's. There were similar columns way before that. Some were called "advice to the Lovelorn."
27
@Dheep P', the world was never heaven. It was messed up when we got here, and it will be messed up long after we are gone. No generation is a single entity; we're many millions with different races, genders, economic classes, medical issues, loves, angers, crimes, and acts of incredible kindness. The greatest generation, for the vastly most part, never saw combat or went overseas. Their parents got them through the depression, and their forebears created unions and benefits for them as working people that they didn't protect for their children. So stereotype and invented narrative (convenient for those who would wish to cast down the old, as well as their common targets of the poor and sick) are of negative value both to the elders now and those who will come, including generations with other absurd monikers.
19
Perhaps the bro-in-law is putting on a front for money. There is a lot of money in the right-wing shout world. After all, during a custody battle, Alex Jones' lawyer said that Jones is just an entertainer.
19
Before doing anything I would discuss it with your sister. I would be concerned about the effect of an precipitous action on her.
23
Letter 1: You would simply be feeding this former relative's ire by trying to engage with him citizen to citizen. That stance is completely foreign to him and would lead you to becoming someone to victimize. If you fear for your physical safety then don't poke the beast. It's not your job to reason with a toxic person who does not need to be in your life anyway. If you must, devise a plan of gradual withdrawal from events he is likely to attend. I would document any threats etc and have them ready to alert authorities if the need arises.
Letter Two: Alert the loan collector and put your mind at ease.
Letter Three: You've inadvertently stumbled into something. Back away; you don't know the dynamics of their relationship. They are responsible for their relationship, not you.
Letter Four: You were cruel to someone you once loved enough to marry. Since you've had no contact for well over 40 years you might assume he may not care to have an unhappy past dredged up so that you can appease your conscience. Leave him alone.
50
@Jennifer These are better responses than the column itself delivered.
26
Oh, I don't know.... if they are awful, why keep them around?
18
@Gaston Buhunny, perhaps because there is no "away" to go, or to send someone to, anymore. The world has changed.
4
While someone has not even a minimal obligation to maintain a relationship with a former brother in law I do think it is worth noting that the extreme claims about his views may reflect more about the person writing than about the actual person. Disagreeing with someones views may be a legitimate reason to cut off contact though the more people do that the worse off we are as a society. But backing up a claim that these views are a sign of mental illness is a pretty high bar. Sounds more like an example of the problem I once heard best described as " conservatives think liberals are stupid and liberals think conservatives are evil".
6
@Todd I think the "mental illness" accusations floating around are probably "Narcissistic Personality Disorder." This is increasingly common, thanks to the role-modeling done by our Egotist-in-Chief and to the many ways that we now have for pontificating at large. NPD can be found in many places and on both extremes of the political spectrum. My experience is that those who have it do not listen to reason and are best avoided until such time as they come to their senses, which, admittedly, may never happen.
24
@Jackie So how do people come to their senses? I would be concerned with physical threats to the family category, and keep a record, as Jennifer above suggests. But I'd say or ask something to register disagreement/ disappointment.
3
The second letter could also be a case of pornography.
16
That’s what I was thinking too. She didn’t say the bed was creaking but just referenced the moans. In any case, even if he d have someone else there, he could always claim it was porn.
6
It doesn't really DO any good to talk politics with your relatives, not if you love them. It just makes drama. My mother is on the opposite side of the political aisle. She doesn't live in Reality. As we all know, Reality has a Liberal bias.
Trying to talk to her about reality just elicits comments about how "judgmental" I am, how I "rigid" I am, what a "black and white thinker" I am--all of which makes me want to laugh like hyenas, because, NOPE. Never was any of those things. It's a great way to sever the relationship, which I have no desire to do. Mom doesn't live in reality, she lives in Right Wing World.
Obviously, if LW1 is writing to the NYT, probably on the Left, which means noxious ex-Bro-in-Law is probably on the Right. He doesn't consume the same news we do. He doesn't have the same friends we do. He doesn't live in the same reality we do.
Yes, he actually does hate you, LW1. He just doesn't know you are YOU. Yes, you could say: Hey bro, "those people" you hate and call down violence on... that's ME and OUR family, you're hating. Stop that. How would you feel if some nutter heard you some night and curb stomped one of our kids after you made a call to violence? Is that what you want to achieve? Because that's what's going to happen to someone's kids if you keep being irresponsible. This is our family you're endangering.
But don't expect him to have any empathy, responsibility, or moderate his words or tone. My guess is, he's too far gone already.
Mom is.
74
@Dejah My mother is a Quaker and as such is quite “pie in the sky”. She believes in that of god in everyone and pacifism. I have always said that someone has to be an idealist in this world. She sets an example for us all.
14
@Dejah I definitely disagree with you. My brother and I are very close, though you likely won’t find two people so far apart on the political spectrum. We discuss politics quite often, and sometimes use each other to figure out the “other side of the aisle.” We attend the Presidential Inauguration every 4 years, regardless of the party being sworn into office. People on the other side are living in the same reality, they just perceive it a bit differently. Unless someone is so extreme as to be a member of violent extremists groups such as the KKK or Antifa, the former BIL likely doesn’t hate the writer of the letter. There’s too much toxicity in political discourse these days and I fear it’s fracturing society irreparably. Please, don’t be part of it!
7
Why not? Do you have a problem with being true to yourself? Don’t you nurture or have boundaries?
2
I just submitted an article and made ONE error. Please read this and forget my previous statement. Sorry!! It was the UN, and not the US, that is dominated by the devil. I have no idea how he feels about Trump.
.......
Fortunately my brother lives in another state. He is just fine and a nice fellow until he starts talking about religion and politics. Obama was the anti-Christ who would destroy the US. He set up FEMA camps to kill people. The military is storing up food so that soon it will start killing US citizens. Pope Francis is in league with Satan to control the world. The leader of the UN is dominated by the devil and both are working to create a new world order run totally by the devil. There is no climate change because god controls the weather. Liberals kill people.
I find it absolutely impossible to speak with him on these subjects. I'm assuming he gets his 'news' from some online source.
He worries about me because I don't read the bible. When Jesus comes this second time I will be burning for an eternity in hell. So far, I'm not too worried about that. I muc
21
@Carol Ring anyone who thinks this way is clearly not right in his head. I am middle of the road leaning more conservative in my views and I can assure you, this is not what the average conservative believes. This viewpoint is extreme and damaging. Both aisles have their extremes. Please do not generalize.
4
I'm glad the Times now has a working, clearly competent philosopher in this role. I feel I can use the Ethicist's ideas and answers to help guide my own decisions.
7
The guy is your ex-brother-in-law. How is he a relative? He is not and therefore you need not bother with him, if only because he uses the wrong fork for dinner.
26
It should take much more information to answer the first letter writer ethically. The key word here — or prefix — is “ex”. What were the causes of the breakup and how has the divorce fared over all this time? Are their kids and did they start cutting him as he changed views, accelerating said changes? Likewise, who are his new relationships? Has he been unable to find the love we all want, or lost a job in some way that inflamed his political views?
If this were a brother or brother-in-law, I’d agree that this letter provides enough information to justify the answer given. And in those cases, it would be a good answer. But divorce — as it is meant to — changes everything.
8
We handle our bad relationships like we handle our presidential debates: No real discourse. Just short sound bites of information from the other side, that we hear but ignore.
You got two options: 1) just ignore him like we do our friends of yore on facebook-collected-lists, or 2) tell him you are sick of his politics and attitudes and never want to see him or hear from him again! SMS is the modern way to do that, that’s how some countries even handle divorces (NYT Report).
2
"Is an apology always the ethical choice? " This is a terrific ethical question and keeps this forum from becoming an advice column. Thanks to the LW!
12
@Roger
It was the thought provoking core of this column.
4
I feel impelled to point out to the potential exposer of adultery that such an act may awaken hatred and cause very bad outcomes not only for the cheating spouse but for the person telling tales that wreck a marriage. You put yourself in the midst of others' marital problems at your own risk.
21
Although the summary of the hatemonger’s opinions does not say that his opinions are Ultrarightist, we know that they are because the Ethical One tells us so. We also know this to be true because Progressives love and all others hate.
5
@Fred
Maybe, but in searching it I saw the 'Alex Jones', googled the name, and thought maybe that was a clue to right or left. But reading it the other way, with the writer being right and the hater being left, the answer of keeping dialogue open remains a pleasant possibility.
8
@elisabeth Agree. Fred is the third writer to ignore the Alex Jones reference in the asker's letter. One might argue that Jones refers only to the ex-BIL's mental state, not to his political program; I took the reference to be to the program not just mental state.
I would also be concerned about threats to my family/category, but would at least raise the question of whether the ex-BIL intends to attack his ex family. I'd also follow the classic feedback principle: "only 'I' statements" (no denunciations).
10
The only reason I wouldn’t cut off the first guy is to ensure he couldn’t use the “liberal snowflake” meme, the “free speech martyr” device, or any of the litany of script-flipping ploys the current crop of offensiveness-mongers are dealing in. But you should not, under any circumstances, think that reasoning with him will change anything. It’s been found that racist/sexist/xenophobic people are not persuadable when you try to point out, no matter how gently, they’re wrong; instead, they double down. Marginalize his views by not responding to them. Maybe he will be the one to drift or, clearly better than that, knock it off.
28
@MB Agree with your take 100 percent. I've had to take the "marginalize ... by not responding" path with my own belligerent, right-wing sister. My only sister, very painful. Yet in a welcome twist -- irony and just desserts combined -- her two wonderful, young adult daughters, my dear nieces, are nothing like her.
18
@MB It's true that cognitive bias researchers have found that conflicting information tends to drive the opinionated as well as bigots further in the direction of their own beliefs. But I'd still model some semblance of civil discourse; it may also give some moral support to other critics, such as the nieces Julie Eagle-Cardo mentions.
4
I also have the issue of right wing relatives that I dread to deal with. One of them recently told me that he was really inspired by Hitler and is reading up on his accomplishments. He also said that it was sad that the genocide of the Native Americans had not been complete. He has an intelligent, tolerant wife and two lovely young adult children. I could not be married to someone with those views and don't understand how their relationship works. I can't cut off all contact because the wife and children.
36
LW3- An apology this late in life generally forces someone to re-live the experience that caused so much pain. After the apology, the inflicting party feels so much better (what a really swell person I am to have apologized after all these years -truly terrific - a saint!), but there is no reason to assume that the affected party feels any better. In fact, dredging up past hurts is like abrading scar tissue with the attendant risk of opening a new wound. There is no great good to be achieved by this, and my suspicion would be that someone wanted to remind me of the bad event in order to really, thoroughly annoy me. "Remember when we walked hand in hand over the hills and valleys and picked flowers in the glory of the afternoon sun? I was faking it and I'm sorry I didn't tell you."
When people say, "It was all me, This is not you." they are frequently lying to themselves and hoping you'll pick up a bucket of the hurt feelings that are scattered around everywhere. They are hoping you'll be as hurt as they imagine you to be. You're supposed to say, "No, no. It was both of us, maybe even more me than you" Those people are invariably disappointed if you say, "Yep. You're right. It was all you. I get along without you very well..(I have forgotten you). Now go away."
17
@Delee. I am surprised many posters feel an apology will exacerbate old hurts and do more harm than good. In my experience, it unfortunately is impossible to forget an old hurt if it is a very deep one. I would welcome an apology as long as it was heartfelt and accurate.
22
Also there is the "creepy stalker from the past vibe"
that an apology that is that belated raises. Yes I questions the apologists motives...
16
RE: politics and dinner
There are times where it is better to have no contact with people who have abused you or are a complete pain to deal with under any circumstances. If you really cannot stand the political views of someone and it gets you very emotionally upset why deal with it? This is not an ethical questions- this is a psychological issue affecting your own mental health. How can this be fun for you?
36
#1 It won't do any good but you can try, he can probably do a radio show about you
#2 Yes you have to contact the loan collector no ambiguity here
#3 Mind your own business. You can complain about the noise but can't express your theory of what the "noise" was unless asked
#4 Will an apology make him feel better or make YOU feel better? From that long ago let it lie instead of stirring the pot. I think you have to accept that you were a jerk. The time to apologize was 40 plus years ago.
41
He would see you as weak and attack you more, I have already walked that path. Ignore any invite and leave if he shows up. Your mental health and happinesses are way more important than appeasing someone who will neither appreciate it nor make any attempt to reconcile your opposing views. Also, your citizenship will not suffer because you cut him out of your life.
36
One might owe some respect to a person who holds opposing views but tries to hear out yours genuinely. One doesn’t owe anything to a professional reactionary who makes money by hate mongering. Cut him off.
128
@Angelus Ravenscroft-Good points. If one was to follow The Ethicist's well-meaning advice, I would recommend establishing rules of engagement up front, such as allowing both sides to be heard, not interrupting, not name-calling, practicing reflective listening and following principles of connected speech, etc. Also point out, people cannot communicate effectively about politics when they feel threatened. If there's no agreement about how to engage--it could quickly turn into a useless endeavor. Fortunately there's now really excellent ideas and tools for connecting.
I Was a Liberal Who Worked at Fox News. Here's What That Taught Me About Arguing Politics
Https://www.yahoo.com/News/Liberal-Worked-Fox-News-Apos-143821545.Html
Excerpted from The Opposite of Hate: A Field Guide to Repairing Our Humanity
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/18/opinion/thanksgiving-family-argue-chat-bot.html
2
Unfortunately with social media these toxic people feed off each other and their hate metastasizes. People suggest keeping open the lines of communication but personally I would tell them goodbye and why and cut them off. Often these are bullies or entitled people and they are not interested in listening but in shouting or one upping you with snark. Maureen Dowd has an annual Dowd family Thanksgiving column on dealing with her extremely right wing brothers. They are getting more rigid by the year. Depressing.
Don’t give them any more air. Send them to Coventry.
16
@Sharon Knettell But you include "goodbye *and why*"; I think something along those lines is in order; in any case, I'd try it. An ex-brother-in-law isn't a best friend, and many of the cautionary remarks are worthwhile -- keep a record of the threats, talk to your sister (the ex-wife) before charging ahead. I'd also avoid couching my words in accusations or condemnations, even if I felt condemnatory, but would speak up.
2
@Sharon Knettell I do agree Sharon but I cannot help but to remind myself that it would be much easier to "cut off" an ex brother-in-law than my own present day immediate family member.
1
Re: first response. "Right wing radio station." This, in four words, is exactly what is wrong with the mainstream media today. The LW makes zero mention of this man's political views. He could be a Democrat, Green Party, anarchist. Yet this NYT writer jumps immediately to the conclusion that he is right wing. These are exactly the kind of assumptions that permeate the news today.
6
@Evan Black Because, unfortunately, those assumptions are usually right. Yes, it is stereotyping, but stereotyping is just a kind of time-saving shorthand for describing a long list of behaviors that fit a particular profile.
15
@Evan Black Zero mention? The LW mentions Alex Jones by name. Seems to me that you are jumping immediately to conclusions, too. Could be that the Alex Jones reference is only to the ex-BIL's mental health, but given his prominence, I took it to mean the ex-BIL's political views as well. Left or right, I believe the advice to speak up, ask a question, state your disagreement, is valid.
Right-wing talk radio, which arose after the Fairness Doctrine was dropped, certainly *is* a problem.
13
@Evan Black What do you think the Alex Jones mention suggested?
11
With regard to the noise-complaint letter, it's possible the wife was embarrassed, and that she claimed to be out of town while still in the grip of emotion and without thinking through the implications.
Also, if it occurred to the LW that the husband was cheating, you can bet it also occurred to the wife.
Yes, the LW used tactfully vague language. But a noise complaint at 12:30AM, disturbing enough to have prompted a text at the time it was happening? I think the LW would've noted it if any of the family members had engaged in other noisy behaviors (the husband dropping his dumb bells; the son banging on a drum kit), so the wife will have to wonder what noise, specifically, was penetrating those thin walls.
I think the LW would do well to engage in a little introspection as to whether he or she might be chasing after drama.
13
LW1 . - get away from this person. Do not confront or tell him you don' t like his views and are cutting him off because of them. This person has according to you publicly called for violent action against people like you and your family.
When someone shows you who they are, believe them. Even if confronting this person wouldn't be dangerous, him later telling like-minded people he knows that you have could be dangerous to you.
Extricate yourself for reasons of your own safety. You have no way to gauge how serious he is about what he's been advocating.
48
As to NW: Whatever is decided, any resolution should include using what happened back then to be more self-critical now in your relation to other people. Just because we feel something does not mean it is right. We have all been cold to other people because we can feel caring for others takes away from our care for ourselves. We do not ask are we telling ourselves the truth or just following our ego's whims?
3
What is most interesting about this column are the comments. It’s like psychology 101. The broad series of assumptions, from “she probably was very happy knowing you were listening to her ” to “he might be able to get on with his life,” are very telling.
My favorite comment is the congratulations to the Ethicist for being right on all four answers.
2
In the case of the "hateful" relative I believe you have the right to inform him that his strident views are upsetting to you and that although he has the right to his opinions they should not be foisted upon you repeatedly. Of course some people are inconsiderate and irrepressible and frustrated so there could well come a time when a break in contact is absolutely essential to getting your message across and to retain your own sanity.
7
I have to disagree with confronting the potentially violent relative. I would just fade out of his life. He’ll know why.
54
@Kathleen Marvin Yes, but it is the rare loud-mouthed relative who takes responsibility for alienating the affections of another person because of something that he said. Doubtless, the loud-mouthed relative will not be introspective, but will, instead, blame the "snowflake" for taking offense at something that he said that was patently offensive.
11
To the person wanting to cut off their relative. We have a real problem in this country with living in a bubble. We simply cannot cut people off for "thinking" differently. Are these views truly hateful or just different than yours. Are you open to having your mind changed? If two parties have different views and are open minded they can learn to agree to disagree. Having a different opinion does not mean that person is evil (clearly if this person has murderous thoughts or wishes harm on others that's a major exception). Republicans are not evil. Democrats are not evil. Progressives are not evil. These are people with different views on achieving the same goal. Some ideas may work some may not. So no you cannot cut this person off because everyone must learn how to tolerate others. Talk about something other than politics. We have a very serious problem of wanting to point the finger on each side and call each other names. It's not uniting this country. Be the bigger person and try to be kind and see how you can meet in the middle.
5
upstairs neighbor, by communicating about the noise, haven't you already told her?
20
I would appreciate an apology from my first husband.
After a two-year marriage, I tossed out a lying, cheating thief who declined to dirty his hands by working to support us.
Two days later he came back and stole everything but the dirty clothes in the hamper and dishes in the sink. He even took my dog I’d had since I was fourteen.
Three days later I found my dog dead on the side of a road and I haven’t heard from the ex yet.
I don’t care about the material possessions but an apology, forty-four years later for stealing my dog would be nice.
I’m not holding my breath.
15
In very much the same situation, the first thing I did when I joined Facebook was find my ex and send him a message. I apologized for being such a bad girlfriend 45 years ago. My experience was very positive.
15
I think it is perfectly acceptable to put distance between oneself and a relative with hateful views. It also sounds like the relative has crossed several other lines of civility to the point where the letter writer believes the ex brother-in-law is a physical danger. I would start with declining invitations and limit contact. It appears the guy has gone off the rails (far beyond normal political disagreements) and could very well be mentally ill. Mental illness, violent rhetoric, and easy access one has to guns in this country is a dangerous combination.
25
I strongly disagree with the answer to " Relative with hateful Views ". He will never change, as long as he has an audience and gets attention. Don't BE his audience. Spare yourself the stress and drama. Cut him off, now. If he notices and asks why, give a simple, honest explanation. But be prepared to wait a very, very long time. Speaking from experience.
40
Yes. The crazy former brother-in-law is right wing. He is also a dangerous person. I would not engage him. I would block his phone numbers and email accounts and not respond to him in any way. If he needs help, maybe he can get it in prison once he finally acts out on his violent impulses. I would have nothing at all to do with him.
42
Here's a thought that the Ethicist doesn't seem to consider: What if telling this person that you find his views hateful leads him to attack you either physically, verbally, or socially as on social media and talk radio? In the narrative along with the question is the reference to both social media and talk radio which is why I mention this concern. What if this person is someone with whom rational discourse or civil discourse is simply not possible?
26
"He has a blog and is an occasional radio host, so his are very public opinions that are filled with hate and even calls to violent action."
Violent calls to action? I would be very cautious in approaching anyone with this attitude. A rational conversation is for those who are rational, not someone who may well bring violence to your doorstep.
31
I'm tired of reading articles where authors assume that because people are related that somehow trumps any other variables that might be relevant, like the person is a white supremacist, misogynist or homophobe, for example. Because we live in a "Democracy," we are supposed to try to offer counter-arguments to their odious positions, so we can all get along. First of all, we don't have a democracy, we live in an oligarchy. Evidence for this fact is all around us, and those that pretend otherwise have their heads in the sand. But even if we did live in a democracy some ideas are worth fighting for. I believe this is what the first Civil war was about. Millions of people died because some people could not be persuaded to change their views on slavery. As most people know, close relatives fought against each other in that devastating event. Looks like we might be headed for another.
184
I had a college boyfriend who treated me shabbily and then apologized when we were about 50. It meant the world to me, even though he and I had no ongoing relationship and still don’t.
Did apologizing to me relieve his sense of guilt? Undoubtedly. But to suggest that because makiing an apology relieves a perpetrator’s guilt the apology is therefore self-serving and should not be made is, to me, just screwy.
If more people stepped forward to right past wrongs, the world would be a better place.
200
@ElleninCA
Maybe, and in your case it was a blessing. But for others, once trust has been lost, it is difficult to restore.
9
@ElleninCA
Your response feel right to me.
While we do move on, that doesn't mean that some actions - especially betrayals of trust - don't leave an imprint.
For the person who receives an apology, it doesn't mean that s/he is compelled to welcome the perpetrator back into their life, or to provide comfort to him. It simply means that there is now clarity, and possibly, a validation of old feelings from that event. It might also allow other old memories associated with that person to be understood differently. Some times after a betrayal we, wonder if all of the interactions with that person were based on deception. It poisons memories. SO an apology might remove whatever toxin is left.
25
@ElleninCA-Agree. Many of us have been unschooled in the courtship/relationship dance, rules of which keep changing. I know at a younger age I acted insensitively and awkwardly and caused unintended hurt. I've also been on the receiving end of painful behavior that bruised if not broke my heart. Recognizing the impact of unskillful or unkind behavior and making amends is part of growing up and behaving as a mature, responsible adult.
28
About the first letter and the former brother in law.
Your sister got rid of him and you’re worried about being nice to him?
The answer almost implies that everyone that attends and yells and screams at a Trump ( or Sanders) rally is someone I should meet with to try to preserve our democracy. Even if she met with her former brother in law and he altered his thoughts a little would she want him in her life. I think not.
Life is too short for wasting time on lost cases like this.
35
Why do we jump to open relationships whenever we see evidence of one party being unfaithful? If it truly were an open marriage then the wife would have probably covered for her husband and apologized. If she knew what was going on she wouldn’t have cast the blame on her husband and put the letter-writer in such an awkward situation. Sometimes things are exaxtly as they seem — the benefit of the doubt only goes so far.
9
Exactly.
4
So, would nothing be served by America apologizing for what it did to Native Americans? Or its interference for selfish economic, not democratic, reasons in other countries? Or Turkey apologizing what it did to Armenians? There's a long list.
We were all younger once. We have all made mistakes. Most of us have moved on to different degrees. My belief is apologizing is unlikely to reopen old wounds but may help heal a small trauma that is remembered from time to time.
12
@hk, money, land allotments, and no-cost medical and dental care are some reparations that are made to native Americans, and have been for several generations now. They're our neighbors, coworkers, friends, more. It does not by any means make up for the genocide that nearly eradicated their people and cultures. But yes, there is something to be done, if real atonement and compensation are possible. In the case here, it seems to me that nothing much would be served, given the time frame and intimate nature of the apparent wrong. The other person may have no desire to hear about it anymore, but most likely has moved a long way on by now.
3
In the first case, it might be better to simply drop contact with excuses. The obnoxious ex- relative might simply drift away. I would be uncomfortable confronting someone who subscribes to violent ideals. In fact acting concerned will require further obligations, meetings, conversations, that can be avoided by simply connecting with the rest of the group and together avoiding an invite for said person.
The rest is spot on advice :-)).
7
I would hesitate to announce to an Alex Jones--type former relative who peddles in hateful rhetoric that I'm cutting off a relationship with him. Ghosting is definitely a safer choice in this scenario. No telling what he might do.
24
If you are rattled by somebody's persistent noise, then stop the rattle and decamp from that somebody, even if it is a relative. You are under no obligation to explain the world to them. Relatives are genetic accidents; chose those you want as friends and let the others cotton to you, if they wish. Keep your inner peace.
8
I hope LW#2 will write in and update, because I'm hoping that a generous benefactor paid off part of the loans. That would be nice! And ethical, right? :)
15
The next time you are invited to the bigoted ex-brother in law's, decline the invitation and mention that his politics are disturbing to you. You can't change his views so don't argue about it, but you can let him know that is why you can't come.
The person who was credited $10K on the student loan should notify the lender right away. Keeping the money is stealing. Honesty works both ways. If your account was short by $10K you can be sure you would have been on the phone right away to correct the mistake.
Leave the upstairs neighbor alone. If she was not there when she got that message then she knows what was going on and will act on it the way she wants.
26
I hate to disagree with the good Ethicist, but this Ethicist would retort that apologies aren’t merely about repairing relationships. They’re also about restoring ethical wholeness, for example. Or healing emotional wounds. In very profound ways.
A sincere apology, even after so many years, can work wonders, for both parties. I say go for it.
25
I think we need to do away with the idea that in-laws are relatives
14
@Eric Why generalize?
Apologies are not always about repairing the relationship — sometimes it is only about saying “I see how i behaved was wrong and hurtful and I am sorry.” And no reparation or reestablishment of the relationship is necessary. The letter writer doesn’t say they want to repair the relationship, that was just an assumption.
I have been apologized to for past wrongs years later and I have done the same. Rarely, it has resulted in a relationship reforming (becoming friends again). But the point of saying sorry to someone is to show that you recognize that your behavior was hurtful and you are sorry for causing pain. It is good to know people change and reflect upon their behavior.
Apologies are often cathartic for both parties.
23
Yes, absolutely and irrevocably you can cut a relative. One's choice of relatives is like one's religion and forename -- not a choice of free will.
About the woman in Toronto who "heard loud intercourse" through the ceiling. I am sorry to read that "intercourse" is used here in its modern, denatured, Newspeak sense, rather than in its original meaning of contact or communication.
4
You may be overthinking this, nobody is entitled to your time, you seemingly don’t enjoy this person’s company or gain anything from the relationship so stop engaging, there’s no conversation that needs to be had.
It sounds like that conversation would just further stoke the other person’s view of divisions in society and “Us” vs. “Them” mentalities so even more reason to just walk away and spend time with people you enjoy.
13
As a psychotherapist I would have wanted to learn just how uncomfortable the person was with his brother-in-law expressing his political opinions. I would suggest that there is a point where cutting off a relationship is appropriate if it ruins any time spent in his presence to the point you dread going to these events. Short of that I would suggest telling him that any discussions about politics are off-limits.
There have been several good articles about why people have these intransigent beliefs which I would suggest the individual read if he was interested.
3
Great advice for the recent college graduate. If you owe it, then pay it. Otherwise, even after you pay off your debt minus the $10,000, you'll always be looking over shoulder wondering if you'll be "caught," possibly with interest. Yikes. Plus, you'll feel better about yourself for being honest. Call your bank tonight.
15
Regarding the noise upstairs - how do you know it was the husband? You don't say how old the son is, but if he is a teenager, or older, maybe he has a girlfriend.
13
Toxic people are not good for anyone including themselves. Why would anyone in their right mind ask permission to cut off contact with toxic relatives and ex-relatives? Mentally healthy people do not want to be around toxic people and that is just as it should be.
If toxic people used family gatherings to spew their toxicity I would avoid the family gatherings. If someone wanted an explanation it would be reasonable to say that you choose to spend your time in positive ways and further chose to avoid people who have no respect for the opinions and feelings of others.
13
It used to seem a bit wearisome when Ann Landers's response to letter writers was so often basically "seek counselling." But now that we see the results when a columnist is apparently required by his or her publication to make pronouncements about other people's complex and ultimately unknowable circumstances it is clear that Ann's approach was the only ethical one. A particularly egregious case was the recent troubling response to a parent who wanted to remove a mildly autistic daughter from his or her life (a parent who for some reason tells her to clean her room, knowing with certainty that it will upset her deeply -- welcome to autism). It is time for the Ethicist to either 1) take on more trivial cases where the outcome won't really matter; 2) provide some reasoning on both sides of an issue but remain utterly neutral on complex and fraught topics that can't possibly be fully described or understood in this format; or 3) hang up his or her shingle.
9
Re: Apologising to someone you treated badly (in this case, her first husband).
I disagree with the Ethicist. Inflicting pain decades ago leaves a mark on both the inflicter and the injured one. A kind apology can wash that away.
If, as the Ethicist assumes, the pain is long buried, then bringing it back and lancing the hidden wound with kindness (which a genuine apology is) can only help both of you. And, need I remind you, a genuine apology expects nothing from the other person. It's all about you and YOUR apology to this person. How he reacts is his business and his right to react any way he wants.
12
I have to disagree with the Ethicist on the response to LW 1. Confronting the ex- brother-in-law will, in my opinion, solve nothing, and
may even cause the writer harm. It is generally impossible to change another person’s mind about political stances, especially when that person is filled with hate. Furthermore, since the ex-relative is calling for violence, what’s to say a confrontation won’t put the writer in harm’s way? Best to just step away. That will send the same message. The ex will probably know why.
Of course LW 2 must contact the bank. And who knows? Maybe it will turn out that she has been the beneficiary of some unknown person’s generosity!
I suspect that LW 3’s message to the wife may have already alerted her that hubby has been up to no good while she was away, and that no further action is necessary. In fact, it’s possible that the wife’s absence indicates a marital separation. That said, the fact that the LW has the wife’s phone number or email address may indicate that they are friends. In that case, a follow-up message asking if everything’s okay could open the door for more revelations on both sides.
I’m all in favor of LW 4 sending her long-ago ex an apology. As one who has been on the receiving end of one by my ex, I can attest to the fact that apologies of this sort make both parties feel better.
7
I’m living this. But in my case I see a combination of extreme religiosity and a mental or emotional illness. For obvious reasons, I keep silent. It’s all I can do. There is no cure that I can see.
5
When I saw the illustration, I assumed the "hateful relative" was going to be someone older, a father or uncle. Nope, it's a brother-in-law, and the drawing is an ageist stereotype.
4
re: apology
Name withheld has been happily married for the last 40 years. Good for her. The fellow she feels she harmed is apparently pretty successful in some way and hopefully he is happy as well. But what if he is not? I can't imagine wanting to ever hear from someone who did that to me again. Thinking your apology is needed 40 years late seems self serving. Maybe it would be welcome, but have some humility and realize...it's probably not. He's moved on, don't interfere in his life.
14
I disagree with the Ethicist regarding the relative who now advocates violence and hatred.
Generally we owe loyalty to the family members and unit. But there are limits which justify a cut-off.
One limit for me would be a family member advocating bigotry and violence against the kind of people in the family unit, which is the same for the LW. This direct attack is simply not ok.
Another example would be advocating immoral beliefs and/or behavior. This includes advocating hatred, bigotry, or violence or controlling or providing lesser public services to some groups.
The most I could tolerate for the sake of family would be a strong boundary of no discussions of such views with this relative, or at dinner tables, keeping my children away from this person and teaching them that these beliefs are wrong.
The days are sadly gone when being from the 2 different parties means that we can have a spirited and genteel dinner discussion of, say, domestic policy, with the kids listening in and even learn something as a result.
I hope someday we can get back to those times.
9
In my late 50's, I was contacted by a person I'd not seen for 40 years. He apologized for our last interaction and for causing me pain. I had no idea what he was talking about.
Another example: when I was going through a divorce at 30, I saw a therapist who made a sexual pass. Twenty years later, I got an impassioned note from him, asking me to meet with him and his therapist in order to "process" his behavior and its effect on me. While I was disgusted by his actions, I was in no way traumatized by them and told him I had no interest in meeting with him.
Sometimes, people overestimate their impact on the people to whom they belatedly apologize.
39
Re apologies. In AA “making amends” includes the qualification that you don’t attempt amends if it will hurt them or others. This is a tough judgement call in this case, but it is also worth considering the impact of the apology on the current husband.
I once knew a man who made amends to the widow of a man he had killed in a DUI accident. Amazingly enough it was healing for both parties.
And apologies are not just about repairing relationships but also about relieving guilt and clearing up the past in an existential way.
12
I'm not sure I'd be confronting somebody who recommends violence. Does he own guns? Does he have a criminal record? Discretion can not only be the better part of valor, but also the safest.
15
Thank you for validating that approaching a long-ago person to make an apology is really only to make oneself feel better and does nothing positive for the recipient. Now if AA would only get that through to its members....
7
@Leslie
Well, the AA thing is to "make amends." If an apology is going to cause someone hurt, rather than help in some way, then that's not making amends. Granted this is probably often a tough call.
5
I am a big fan of speaking up rather than leaving people in the dark about what you're upset about. But I think we should also acknowledge confronting someone is doing them a favour, and it requires an investment of time, energy and emotion. Some people are worth it and some people are not.
17
@Andrew Kelm
Self serving words to justify ghosting. If you had what you acknowledge was a relationship, you owe that person a chance to repair it--or you owe them a farewell.
Basic integrity.
5
@Andrew Kelm
To ghost a friend when one decides they are no longer worthy of "time, energy and emotion" is cruel, but is mostly an act of cowardice, nothing else.
5
I worry about the ex-brother in law who calls for violent action. If he were to act on these ideas, the writer would probably feel guilty. It would be a good idea to alert any platforms he's using, and even speak to the police for suggestions. He's almost certainly not breaking the law, but they may want to be aware.
25
@v thornton It is important that the police closely monitor all conduct of known subversives. The First Amendment is not a license to hold unauthorized opinions.
7
If the borrower with a $10,000 credit on his account were to not report it, it could show up in an audit of the accounts and he would still be that much more in debt. Also consider that if the 10K was meant for someone else's account, that someone else would notice that it hadn't been credited and launch an investigation with the lender which would then turn up the error.
Not even tempting to me. Best to report it immediately. I'm surprised the borrower didn't understand any of this.
26
@John
The borrower may not have "understood" all the ramifications involved because he or she was thinking from a moral standpoint, i.e. what the right thing to do would be. While that appears to be their chief concern, it doesn't enter into your discussion at all. So I wonder ... who is really missing the point?
1
EF, John's comment on potential legal repercussions is almost certainly intended as an addendum to the moral aspects already discussed, and not as a replacement or rebuttal. No need to make a slur against him for that.
10
I could have been LW#4 - married too young, divorced after a couple of years. He asked for a "trial separation" which blindsided me and led to a divorce. Hartbroken, I moved away and began a new life.
Having had virtually no contact for 35 years, I met my ex at a memorial service and received an apology. I took it in the spirit is was given, knowing it had happened to two different people a lifetime ago. We'd both moved on - he was happily married and I was happily single. No rancor, no ill will, just a bit more closure.
82
Regarding an apology to a previous abandoned spouse:
Guilt is a strong motivator to make amends, usually for one’s own relief and benefit. If there is no expectation of any further relationship an apology can be rather self serving.
If some relationship or potential for one exists and is desired, a heartfelt unconditional apology can help both move forward.
Be sure of whose needs are being served by the apology.
46
I agree with those who say go ahead and apologize to your first husband. If it was as she described it, I think there's a good chance he'd appreciate it. A high school friend (platonic) hurt me badly, and while I don't expect it to happen, I occasionally fantasize she'll apologize some day, or even just give me a hint why she did it.
39
I don't think you need the Ethicist's permission to cut off contact with an ex-in-law.
Banks occasionally make mistakes; people have to punch in numbers and sometimes they get them wrong. If you play stupid, whoever was supposed to get credit for that payment (if not some internal process of the bank) will likely initiate a correction and get it all squared away as if it was done right from the beginning. That said, there's nothing wrong with bringing it to the bank's attention. I'd want to verify that the payment was correct (and find out where it came from), which would require me to acknowledge it and ask the bank about it.
Regarding the potentially unfaithful neighbor, while maybe not divulging details, a seed was planted. As others have said, maybe the wife wasn't away and is either just messing with the neighbor below or is embarrassed/modest.
I don't see anything wrong with reaching out an apologizing as long as such apology wouldn't do harm (like sending him into depression, to drink himself to death, or to take it out on others, etc.). It might be hard to know that in foresight, but it's probably a risk that can be estimated. I'm kind of partial to being right, so if someone came back and told me after all those years that I was right (i.e. it really wasn't me that caused the breakup), I'd appreciate it.
20
Telling the bank that there was error is required by law. There is a banking law that explicitly covers errors committed by banks. It is not just an ethical issue.
52
@SridharC
I do not know about banking law, but I find it mind-boggling that the LW is even considering not talking with the lender.
As Appiah said, s/he might actually find out that some credit is due (though $10,000 does seem high but the magnitude of an error may depend on the size of the loans). Many students, my own child included, have difficulties with loan servicers (which may change on federally-backed student loans depending on the servicer with which the Dept of Education contracts on any group of loans). In fact, he received a refund of a few thousand dollars for improperly charged interest and failure to credit payments, from the first servicer of his consolidated loans. But he had to pursue the servicer to acknowledge the mistakes. (The second servicer was much better to work with.)
So there is the possibility that the LW is owed something. But it is unethical to not at least discuss the credit with the bank.
30
@human being
There is always the possibility that a generous soul made an extra payment on the borrower’s behalf but wanted to remain anon. This would not be a completely unprecedented event.
4
@SridharC
LOL, laws don't matter. Donald Trump is president. Do you think he would notify the bank? I do what my president would do.
6
Adding my voice on the side of sending the apology (last letter); as evidenced by the first letter, there is too much negativity in the world and there is nothing wrong with communicating kindness to others. As others have said, it is more likely that the decades have provided perspective, and unlikely that this will cause trauma. FWIW, I think the communication should be short and sweet (extensive details not necessary).
I would bet that most people who have been on the receiving end of a truly sincere apology have had their own hearts lightened, and we could all do with more of this kind of generosity of spirit.
86
@CBeth
When one thinks of all the possible ways to break up with someone, this person's way seems less harmful than many. Someone once told me he'd decided I wasn't his type, and then there are the infamous Post-It breakups, and nowadays, ugh, emails! There's no good way to end a relationship, and certainly no way to do so without any hurt feelings. Such feelings are part of growing up and usually we learn wise lessons from them. The lesson this person has learned is that when you hurt someone deliberately, it may stay with you for a long, long time. A good lesson, I think.
7
A few years ago, I was on the receiving end of exactly such an apology. I was quite surprised and pleased to hear from my ex, and remembered things differently. I had nothing but pleasant memories of our time together, and no resentment about the way things ended. There was nothing to forgive. That's the usual perspective after 40 or 50 years. My advice is to reach out, but more importantly, forgive yourself.
175
@Mrs H
Yes! A few years ago I sent such an apology to an ex I had really not done right by. He was a kind soul, and I was really too inexperienced and thoughtless at the time to realize what an idiot I was in how I treated him. I reached out and sent a heartfelt apology for my behaviour 30 years earlier. He accept it with thanks, and we became friendly again via email. Reconnecting also reminded why we broke up at the time, but at least I was able to reassure him it was me who did wrong, not him. I think it was good for both of us.
16
Re: The Apology: The LW is not proposing to apologize because she knows: 1) that the ex-husband is still bothered by her actions many years ago; and 2) an apology will benefit him. Instead, she is proposing to apologize because she is still bothered by her actions, and IMHO is hoping an apology will relieve her guilt. The apology might benefit him, but it might not, and if it does not, it will only increase her guilt. Furthermore, an apology will not necessarily relieve her guilt, even if he accepts the apology and says he forgives her. Ultimately, she needs to find a way to forgive herself and move on. If she cannot do that for herself, there are people who can help, such as psychologists or religious advisors.
67
The person who wants to apologize should examine whether her motives are just to make herself feel better or to genuinely make amends for a wrong done to another. If the latter, will the apology do it?
25
"Relative" is a questionable description of a former in-law. If there are children from the marriage, the writer would benefit them by maintaining a relationship with their father.
If there were no children, what entitles the ex to consideration as a relative?
66
Frankly, not telling the neighbors about a possible affair, and telling the bank about a credit are incompatible advice. If full honesty is required, then yes do tell the bank AND your neighbor about the affair. If not, then let the bank figure it out, and let the neighbors figure it out too.
Interestingly here we learn more about Mr. Appiah, I surmise. It might feel sanctimonious to be 100% honest with the bank, knowing full well that the bank will not have a nervous breakdown, nor a depression, or even a broken marriage --and that the neighbors might. Still, that is no reason for incongruous advice.
13
@Yoandel
People should be able to realize that one simple-minded rule is not realistic. Appiah gave good advice in both cases. Supervising someone else's morality is not the same as watching your own bank account.
104
@Yoandel The difference is that, in the case of the loan, the LW has something to personally gain that LW might not be entitled to. For 'noisy' neighbor, the LW has no personal stake, but others may; the question is, do we have an ethical obligation to share personal information about other's behavior/relationships; his answer is that there is no OBLIGATION to share OR withhold information you did not seek.
16
@Yoandel, it's not incongruous. We have different responsibilities to people depending on our relationships. Not telling everything you know is not lying. It would be a sad world if it were so. We'd be tattling on parents to children, children to parents, spouses to one another, and more. My responsibility to my client or my boss or my bank may be a matter of legal standing. Sometimes I am in fact required NOT to tell what I know to others, and confidentiality must rule. So there is no "incongruity" in this--just a recognition of how much talking we need to do, and often, the less, the better. We can really mess things up butting in with what partial knowledge or interpretation we think we have.
35
I do think the apology advice is shaky. Who knows how the guy might react? It might mean a lot to him. And maybe years later these two people might re-establish some form of relating to each other.
When someone offers to express kind words to another person, there are very few circumstances when I would advise against it. This is not one of them.
103
@polymath
I agree completely.
8
@polymath
Amazingly enough, many of us barely remember a "starter marriage." I think the letter writer has a far greater sense of how important she was to someone who probably barely remembers her. If someone reached out to me in such a way, I would figure they were probably in a 12 step programs that stresses "making amends."
40
@Eli
You must have had quite an exciting youth. I think most of us remember people we were married to.
18
To Liberty NY
It depends how you interpret the reference to Alex Jones.
I would assume the writer of the letter is simply saying that they are both sick.
12
I completely disagree with the apology advice given here. I have waited over 40 years to hear an apology from a certain someone. It would mean a lot. I have a good marriage, a good life, one that is complete without him in it as a current relationship. But that's not the point. I know two people who got exactly what I long for, to whom it was definitely due, and who really appreciated it. I would, too.
220
@Maru.
Sometimes, wenever get the opportunity or validation from having suffered from a wrong deed.
But we can still achieve closure. We can resolve it, forgive it, let it go, seek counsel or therapy.
But as someone wise (or wise cracking) once said, it does you no good to keep giving that person free rent in your head.
11
@Maru I am on the ethicist's side. My heart was broken in a similar fashion 42 years ago and I don't want an apology. To be honest, I would have preferred not to hear from my ex ever again. Ever.
15
@Maru Why are you waiting? You are the one who suffers. I prefer to let things go; that doesn't mean I forgive but it doesn't have a space in my head and heart.
8
I disagree about apologies. For most it probably wouldn't matter, but for some people it could be life-changing - especially for those who tend to hold on to grudges and to constantly re-live past wrongs.
I have a close relative who does just that. Past wrongs haunt him daily and every interaction with anyone (new or old) is a chance to vent again about these decades-old wrongs.. He WAS treated horribly - but he just can't move past it. For someone like my relative, I think an apology from the long-gone wrong-doer, affirming that he did nothing to deserve it would change his life for the better. With any luck, he might finally be able to let it go and get on with his life.
102
@LibertyNY I received such an apology after 20+ years from someone who felt I was wronged. I didn't expect it or actually need i,t and said so, but she insisted and then apologized for being so selfish in the past (and didn't see the irony of this apology). My feeling then was, I (truly) hope she feels better about herself.
5
@LibertyNY It’s strange that you think he has something he needs to get over, and then can move on with his life. After all those years, any reasonably healthy individual would have chalked it up as her problem.
10
Such people do not let go. An apology is seen as a sign of weakness, greeted with a silent sneer.
3
Re: Apologies
Apologies are not always centrally about rebuilding a relationship. An admission of guilt can be an affirmation of norms, an affirmation of feeling wronged. It can clear the guilty person's conscience, yes, but it can also emotionally clarify the recipient's messy feelings.
I think it can be ethically justifiable to dredge this up, if you're very careful about implicating only yourself, if you honestly believe what you'd be sending and wouldn't end up complicating it further, then it might make the other person feel better about the helplessness and pain they felt at the time. Especially if you make clear the apology is not about yourself, but rather about what you think you owe them.
119
@Jack "...an affirmation of norms." Actually, the best reason for an apology, and ethical. Brilliant observation, Jack. Thank you.
9
Name Withheld wants to apologize to her first husband, who she says has a "public presence." Does she unwittingly want to reconnect because of his prestige? If so and she reaches out, he'll sense the hypocricy and could feel freshly hurt.
If she believes she owes him something and wants to avoid hurting him, through information about hus public presence, she could discover a charity he supports and donate time or money to it, to rebalance her account with him.
26
@heath quinn
That would accomplish nothing of value to her.
11
@Thomas Zaslavsky "...to her"; exactly the problem with the apology.
6
@Roger
I think you missed the point. She wants to apologize, not render reparations.
1
Wow - four letters and I actually agree with Mr. Appiah's responses to each. Well done!
11
@George S
Me too!
Regarding LW4, I humbly disagree with the columnist’s onservation that “...the only serious effect of the apology will be to cause him whatever distress might come from revisiting a painful episode or whatever relief might come from your ‘it’s not you, it’s me’ assurances.”
I think we might all agree that wrongs from the distant past can continue to gnaw at us, whether we were the wronged one or the perpetrator. I would suggest sending a brief message to the effect of “I treated you very poorly back then, and I’ve sincerely regretted it for many years. If you have any residual feelings about our interactions, then I’d like to apologize to you more fully, either in person or in writing. If not, then I’d be glad to hear that and also grateful to receive your forgiveness, if you can offer it.”
Basically, you don’t have to dredge up all the details in order to apologize. Besides, the person who was wronged may well remember it differently, or dwell on different details, than you.
I don’t believe that this type of sincere, nonintrusive apology is likely to cause any pain, and the chance of benefit to one or both of you makes it worth expressing.
I apologized in this way to a high school friend 35 years after a deed that later mortified me. She did not even remember any nastiness but responded, “Whatever happened, all is forgiven.” It was a great gift.
261
By "push-notifying" her first husband about her state of mind and emotions on her recollection of what happened way back when, and then essentially requiring a response of some kind, Name Withheld puts herself back in the power seat of the relationship, which is where she was when she did the damage she wants to apologize for.
First Husband is capable of tracking Name Withheld down, if he wants to know how she feels now or believes there's unsettled business between them.
78
@heath quinn
This answer is nonsensical. First Husband might have other priorities these days but be grateful for closure in this matter.
50
@One who was forgiven. I agree that one should offer apologies for past offenses in most cases. I strongly disagree that one should ask for forgiveness. It puts the other person in a very uncomfortable place and makes the apology all about you, not them. If they wish to offer forgiveness, they will.
56
In the first case, it is interesting that you assume that the ex brother in law is a right winger. While probably correct, there is no language specifically stating that. The right in this country actually feels that people of color aided by the evil George Soros is coming for them filled with hate for whites. The person perplexed by this quandary could be worried about someone who occasionally appears on MSNBC.
As for case number three, while I believe that your advice is both wise and ethically correct, it is possible that a slightly annoyed upstairs neighbor is just messing with the letter writer. I might do that. Is that ethical?
24
@runaway I think the reference to Alex Jones is a clue about the right winger.
158
@runaway
Funny--- I thought the ex in-law could very probably be Bill Maher....or Joe Scarborough. They tend toward violence.
The letter actually mentions Alex Jones, a right wing rabble rouser. So it's not a stretch to say the lw is talking about someone on the right.
23
Some of these questions yet again aren’t really ethical - they’re better off for social Qs. Also hasn’t the “should I apologize decades later” question been answered in this column in the past few weeks?
24
@TK, yes, over and over.
3
@TK This happens a lot with this column. Letters regarding actual ethical issues are few and far between. It might be best to make this column a monthly event, to ensure that there is sufficient subject matter that meets the standard of ethical dilemmas, rather than "Dear Abby" fodder/filler.
1
In the second letter, I think the wife was playing you. She probably was very happy with you listening to her and complaining, so she said it wasn’t her. My advice: buy a white noise generator.
53
@Rick
Or maybe she was mortified.
If the noise stops, then it'll disprove your "happy exhibitionist" theory, although it will still be uncertain as to whether it was the wife or another woman who created the nuisance.
5