My sister recorded the whole thing, and invited me over to view it. I would say it’s unwatchable—she agrees—but we did do our best, focusing on the main features of the opening that have caused controversy. This was in the wake of yesterday’s obviously PR-generated non-apology apology from Paris Olympics “organizer” Anne Descamps (whatever that’s supposed to mean):
“Clearly there was never an intention to show disrespect to any religious group. On the contrary, I think Thomas Jolly did try to intend to celebrate community tolerance. We believe this ambition was achieved, if people have taken any offense, we of course are really sorry.”
Should I add that to the Apology Scale as a perfect example of Apology #9? That’s “Deceitful apologies, in which the wording of the apology is crafted to appear apologetic when it is not (“if my words offended, I am sorry”). But I’m not even sure the statement appears apologetic. “Clearly there was never an intention”— that’s a lie, since clearly many, many people believe that was the intention. The “apology” begins by insulting those who were offended. Then again we have the risible “community intolerance” claim. If someone could show me how that mess possibly communicated anything coherent, much less “community tolerance,” I will be eternally grateful.








