Now, more than ever, we should encourage people to apologize.
The social media era encourages in-the-moment reaction to anything and everything. Many times, upon reflection, these insta-reactions don’t reflect the true feelings of the author. If someone is willing to own up to a mistake and accept responsibility, this is a good thing.
But not all apologies are created equal. For apologies to be meaningful, they have to be credible. At a certain point, it’s too late.
Which brings us to Glenn Reynolds, known online as InstaPundit, one of the most prolific bloggers on the Internet. On Wednesday night, Reynolds tweeted this.
The tweet involved protesters who were blocking a highway near Charlotte in protest of the killing of Keith Lamont Scott.
Twitter suspended Reynolds’ account, on the grounds that his tweet was an incitement of violence.
After being suspended, however, Reynolds defended his tweet. He allowed that “run them down” didn’t capture his intent “fully” — but he blamed Twitter’s character count, not his own judgment, for the message.
But riots aren’t peaceful protest. And blocking interstates and trapping people in their cars is not peaceful protest — it’s threatening and dangerous, especially against the background of people rioting, cops being injured, civilian-on-civilian shootings, and so on. I wouldn’t actually aim for people blocking the road, but I wouldn’t stop because I’d fear for my safety, as I think any reasonable person would.
“Run them down” perhaps didn’t capture this fully, but it’s Twitter, where character limits stand in the way of nuance.
Reynolds’ tweet was just 14 characters — far below Twitter’s limit of 140, which could have allowed for at least a little more nuance.
He then appeared on the Hugh Hewitt show and made clear that, upon reflection, he did not apologize for his tweet.
HH: Now let me do what I did with Donald Trump last week, ask you to expand. I think I know what you meant. If you are threatened, you can defend yourself. Is that what you meant, Glenn Reynolds?
GR: Yeah, I’ve blogged about that before where we’ve had other interstates blocked and people surrounded by mobs. I’ve always said I would just keep driving.
HH: And so do you regret being pithy? Might you have said something along the lines of “If threatened, you can run them down?”
GR: I mean, I guess. Although I, you know, it’s Twitter. Pithy is what you do on Twitter, and you sort of expect people to figure out what you’re saying from context.
“I don’t apologize for the sentiment,” Reynolds added. “I think that this tactic of blocking people on the interstate and surrounding cars is itself violent. It is threatening.”
Later, Reynolds heard from Twitter, which said he would get his account restored if he deleted his tweet. Reynolds did so — but then quickly tweeted a link to an article with a screenshot of the original tweet, indicating no actual remorse.
Twitter has unblocked my account on condition of deleting the offending tweet. I've done so, but it's here:: https://t.co/DDkZd2el6Y
— Instapundit.com (@instapundit) September 22, 2016
He also has retweeted dozens of tweets defending his call to “run down” protesters as “common sense” and criticizing Twitter’s decision to suspend his account.
In addition to being a blogger, Reynolds is also a columnist for USA Today. That publication was not happy with his tweet. Reynolds issued a new statement Thursday night in which he finally “apologized.”
Except he’s not really apologizing for saying motorists should run over protesters. He’s only amending how and when he believes a motorist should feel empowered to run over people.
Those words can easily be taken to advocate drivers going out of their way to run down protesters. I meant no such thing, and I’m sorry it seemed I did. What I meant is that drivers who feel their lives are in danger from a violent mob should not stop their vehicles.
Part of making a credible apology is acknowledging the real reason an apology is warranted. Here, Reynolds falls far short. It’s not credible to suggest that, when he tweeted “Run Them Down,” he did not actually mean motorists should target protesters with their cars. That is the literal meaning of that phrase.
Furthermore, Reynolds is still encouraging violence because he’s saying there are still situations in which drivers should run over protesters in a roadway. It is unclear how a motorist would be able to assess whether “their lives are in danger” from an individual standing in the road. Obviously, people should seek to protect their own safety — but they should do so while doing their best not to run people over.
To be clear, it should not be controversial idea that, when driving a vehicle, you should do what you can to avoid killing people.
Reynolds’ statement is not an apology. But you don’t have to take my word for it. On his blog, Reynolds links to his so-called “apology” and says, “I don’t apologize for saying that you shouldn’t stop for angry mobs, even if they’re blocking your way. But I could have said it better.”
USA Today, however, is apparently satisfied with this. The publication said that Reynolds “has apologized” and decided to suspend his column for one month.