Al Bundy
Whatever like it matters
It should....
-
[liberals] often use words that don’t accurately describe what they’re talking about.
Yeah about as much as that idiotic show matters
Dude. Why do you refrain from merely saying that you goofed and move on? You made a mistake. There's nothing to defend or that's defensible. "Own" it and be done. Nobody expects you to be infallible and everyone knows you are not. Or did you truly mean Ted Bundy?
A mistake of ZERO importance
...If the mistake of no importance, why, when it's pointed out to you, you don't simply say, "Yes, I goofed. I meant 'Al Bundy,'" rather than attempt to defend and exculpate your having made it by introducing as you have just above notions of relativity? If it's not an important mistake, as noted above, there's nothing worth defending, and yet defend your, as you say, unimportant error is precisely what you attempted to do. Now what good is there to gain in doing so? Nothing.
I already did correct myself once
You did provide a correction. I'm not denying that, nor have I. If you were paying attention, my comments have had to do with your "owning" your mistake. Look at what you wrote.
Al Bundy
Whatever like it matters
Blundering followed by a correction that's accompanied by an self-absolving remark or one that discounts the the mistake's significance (your's being "whatever like it matters) is not "owning" one's mistake. Even young people who are given to decidedly more laid-back self-expression than I adhere to that concept. Though their and my language for doing so differs, the substance is the same. Upon being informed of an error, an "owning" response given by folks of integrity includes some sort of explicit acknowledgement of one's having been incorrect. Some examples of how to do that (using the Ted/Al Bundy instance) include:
- "Doh! My bad. Al Bundy."
- "Apologies. My mistake. Al Bundy."
- "I'm sorry. I don't know what I was thinking. Of course, Al Bundy, not Ted Bundy, is the MWC character. TY for bringing the mistake to my attention."
- "I'm sorry. I had "such and such" in my mind, and that led me to write 'Ted Bundy' when, of course, I should have written 'Al Bundy.' TY for catching the mistake."
In response, the person who called out the mistake replies with something like:
- "No problem" --> used when the mistake is of no import in the mind of the person who called attention to it
- "Apology accepted" --> used when the mistake has a degree of importance in the mind of the person who called attention to it.
- There are other ways one might reply. Those ways emphasize the responder's desire to focus attention on a specific aspect of importance the mistake, in their mind, has, be it the circumstances, the correction, and/or the person who erred. One can conceive them on one's own; I'm not going to list them.
With the mistake thus "owned," amended, and, where fitting, absolved, both parties move on to the substance of whatever is under discussion.
What is the apology for? It's for disseminating inaccurate information. People of integrity don't want to be party to doing so; thus they apologize after learning they have been.
Notice too that duly "owning" one's mistake does not include oneself expurgating and/or discounting the mistake's significance. Doing that (or not) falls into the purview of one or several others, not the person who made the mistake. It's fine for the errant individual, if they so desire, to supplement their "owning" remarks with an explanation (not excuse) of how they came to make the error, but it's not fine for them to diminish it's existence or the fact of their having made it, for doing either of those latter two things indicates an unwillingness to "own" their foible.
Finally, lest one think what I've described above is just an illustration of undue formality or political correctness, it is not.
Even wild and domesticated animals, using their own communication methods, show the integrity it takes to apply the process I described. For instance, young wolves and domesticated dogs, down to the lowest cur among them, know they’ve done something wrong -- like chomping down on a pal or getting too frisky while wrestling -- and when they do, they strike an apologetically guilty pose. They do so among themselves and with regard to their cross species groups.