You don't think I apologized? I did, feeling guilty and being encouraged to manifest that in the form of an apology by others I spoke to (as there are different ways to manifest guilt), and the person I apologized to forgave me, out of their own free will, and we have been friends for two years ever since, with no notable conflicts with each other. It was some of the onlookers who said it was invalid, as if they had anymore authority to decide that, and it's outright resorting to lying now to say I never apologized. Imagine if the apology was formed according to their vision of how it should look, and the person I was apologizing to was the one who didn't accept it. My friend matters to me, all of him and his alters, and I'd defend him to the death against a hostile mob, and it's not like I don't think of that when questioned en masse about him.

I see how others approach things and am ready to chalk it up to a "they think differently from me" type of matter, so it's disturbing in a way to see they in turn see so much as how someone phrases their issues (which in my case is cultural, neurodivergent, and a matter of trying to include every point) and decide to chalk their differences up to "she has a disorder" type of matter. Hypothetically, if you ask me, if there was any situation where someone with a distorted mind who believed in their ideas was in a kerfuffle with a non-distorted individual (or more than one such individual) who believed the ends justified the means, easily I'd side against the latter, especially after instances like in the original message which challenges the idea that appeal to emotion or appeal to the masses can point to a good argument (for example, people bring up "empathy" as if we're supposed to depend on it for everything). Some undertones are just ethical, and nobody can fully make the case someone is "overjustifying" if nobody will even interview both sides.