The act of atoning may be difficult and complicated, but the concept is simple enough: You did something bad and it caused harm. A basic sense of decency urges you to take measures to, at worst, express how sorry you are, and at best, do something to right the wrong.
On the other side of atonement, we find forgiveness. One does not happen without the other. History has shown us that both of these acts are difficult, and yet both are necessary to maintain a cooperative and functioning society.
I know a few things about mistakes and second chances. As a formerly incarcerated youth and high school dropout, when I decided to run for a state legislative seat, I needed my community to know that not only was I sorry for the many transgressions of my young adult life, but also that I had taken those experiences and learned from them. I learned to treat my mistakes not as points of shame, but as opportunities for growth. It’s those experiences with tough moments that inform my approach to accountability today, and why I believe it matters that people acknowledge when they do wrong.
The #MeToo movement wasn’t just a flash in the pan. It marked a profound tectonic shift toward continued female empowerment and self-realization that’s still evolving, and the ongoing rumbling continues to cause all kinds of discomfort.
After centuries of oppression, subjugation, and dehumanization, women finally began finding their individual voices in the security of a collective chorus. We tapped into a newfound power that, first and foremost, demanded accountability, and the offenders were plentiful and easy to spot. The worst of the worst were forced out of their systemic fortresses of protection. Rapists, sexual assaulters, sexual harassers — villains who refused to acknowledge their actions, much less atone for their behavior. Powerful, rich, and famous men who acted with impunity, some for decades, were finally brought to some version of justice.
And then there was Joe Biden.
Not a villain. Not an unlikable person. Not a sexual harasser or assaulter. But also, as Anita Hill recently found out, not exactly sorry, either.
I wrote about my own experience with Mr. Biden last month — about the time in 2014 that he grabbed my shoulders, smelled my hair, and kissed the back of my head — and soon after, other women came forward about their own experiences with uninvited and unwanted intimate behavior in professional settings. Even though his defenders reduced the behavior to “hugging” (it was not) and shifted the focus to his intent (it was good intent!) and made up false political motives to shift the attention to me (she endorsed Bernie Sanders in 2016!), most reasonable people understood that this kind of behavior with women violates not just their bodily autonomy but also demonstrates a lack of basic understanding of social norms. Most people acknowledge that men don’t usually kiss, smell, rub noses with, place their hands on the thighs of, or touch foreheads with random women they don’t know. Yet some men do, especially powerful men, who are protected by privilege and a crew of self-interested enablers who don’t want to lose their access to power by calling out the obvious.
The subsequent conversation produced a few uncomfortable questions: What level of accountability is necessary when the offender is someone you like and has also done good things for society, including women? What is the appropriate punishment when the behavior is wrong and unwanted and violates basic consent principles, but doesn’t rise to the level of harassment or assault? What do we do when the offender hasn’t bothered to take the first step toward forgiveness?
Society doesn’t do well with gray areas, but gray is exactly what we need. We have to acknowledge that there is egregious behavior that is clearly wrong and, in most cases, also illegal, but we also have to recognize that there’s plenty of behavior that is not illegal but is still wrong, and that we shouldn’t have to tolerate. We need to acknowledge and call out bad behavior no matter who does it, and then we have to allow for fair and measured accountability. Just as with the criminal justice system, we have to make room for people who have made mistakes and we have to take their pasts and mitigating circumstances into consideration. We have to consider their willingness to atone. And we should be willing to forgive.
Intuitively, I think many people, especially in politics, are afraid to acknowledge wrongdoing. Or perhaps their arrogance or egos get in the way. Yet research indicates that a “sorry” goes a long way. In medical malpractice settings, a study found that 43 percent of cases in which medical errors led to injury were resolved with an apology alone.
In the context of the Democratic primary election, no candidate is going to be perfect. Not all of them will have made women uncomfortable; not all of them will have to account for their role in something as controversial and painful for the country as the Clarence Thomas hearings. But all will have made mistakes of some sort in their personal lives, made votes and taken positions you don’t agree with, or disappointed someone at some point. We tend to forget that candidates are people; people are imperfect, and they should be allowed to evolve. If all we do is call people out and demand accountability, but don’t give them credit for actually doing what is asked, then we’re not working for change — we’re working to make ourselves feel righteously outraged by shaming everybody else.
But evolution can’t come without a genuine effort to seek atonement.
What we can learn from the #MeToo movement is that when we demand accountability and work together to actually change culture by changing behaviors and attitudes, we collectively usher in real transformation. If a candidate has taken some questionable positions, or done or said some questionable things, we must ask, what have they done to show they have actually learned and evolved? Ultimately though, the easiest way to fairly assess whether or not someone has truly learned, evolved, and atoned, is to watch their actions. Because when people show you who they are, we should believe them.
Lucy Flores is a social justice advocate, chief executive of Luz Collective, and a former Nevada assemblywoman.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: email@example.com.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.B:
彩库宝典1.0.2安卓版【正】【在】【这】【时】，【半】【空】【中】【的】【小】【黑】【连】【声】【大】【叫】，【与】【四】【只】【秃】【鹫】【搏】【斗】【起】【来】。 【小】【黑】【刚】【从】【黑】【布】**【来】，【心】【中】【一】【口】【闷】【气】【正】【好】【没】【地】【方】【撒】，【此】【时】【见】【到】【这】【四】【只】【秃】【鹫】，【如】【见】【仇】【人】【一】【般】，【恨】【红】【了】【双】【眼】，【势】【必】【要】【将】【这】【四】【只】【可】【恶】【的】【秃】【鹫】【啄】【死】。 【三】【只】【秃】【鹫】【又】【像】【刚】【才】【围】【剿】【小】【黑】【那】【样】【将】【小】【黑】【围】【在】【垓】【心】，【剩】【下】【的】【另】【外】【一】【只】【在】【外】【围】【随】【时】【支】【援】，【只】【是】【这】【次】【昆】【仑】【五】【奇】【没】
【李】【灿】【正】【想】【继】【续】【从】【这】【家】【伙】【空】【中】【询】【问】【一】【些】【消】【息】【的】【时】【候】，【却】【见】【对】【方】【倏】【然】【间】【消】【失】。 【他】【心】【有】【所】【感】【地】【回】【头】，【便】【见】【苏】【茜】【出】【现】【在】【视】【野】【中】。 【脸】【上】【的】【犹】【疑】【尽】【失】，【他】【换】【上】【笑】【容】：“【你】【怎】【么】【来】【了】？” 【苏】【茜】【并】【未】【回】【答】，【而】【是】【反】【问】【道】：“【你】【一】【个】【人】【过】【来】【干】【什】【么】？” “【看】【看】【下】【一】【步】【的】【方】【向】，”【李】【灿】【踌】【躇】【了】【两】【秒】【钟】，【指】【着】【牧】【树】【人】【此】【前】【指】【引】【的】
【古】【老】【的】【房】【间】。 【犬】【神】【看】【着】【面】【前】【的】【场】【景】，【女】【人】【静】【静】【的】【躺】【在】【床】【上】，【而】【那】【个】【胖】【男】【人】【则】【坐】【在】【床】【边】，【深】【情】【的】【看】【着】【床】【上】【的】【女】【人】。 【看】【到】【犬】【神】【破】【门】【而】【入】，【胖】【男】【人】【连】【忙】【站】【了】【起】【来】，【然】【后】【在】【房】【间】【里】【的】【柜】【子】【里】【的】【翻】【找】【了】【起】【来】。 “【想】【找】【武】【器】【吗】？” 【犬】【神】【问】【道】。 【之】【前】【的】【时】【候】，【那】【个】【司】【机】【离】【开】【的】【时】【候】，【说】【过】【武】【器】【之】【类】【的】【东】【西】。 【虽】
【黑】【夜】【之】【下】【高】【山】【静】【默】【屹】【立】，【洁】【白】【玉】【石】【铺】【地】，【灯】【火】【绚】【烂】【非】【常】。 【管】【事】【看】【了】【一】【眼】【少】【年】，【开】【门】【见】【山】【道】：“【船】【只】【上】【的】【侍】【女】【仆】【人】【都】【是】【特】【地】【挑】【选】，【身】【家】【清】【白】，【从】【小】【便】【经】【过】【专】【门】【训】【练】，【来】【历】【不】【明】【的】【人】【是】【不】【可】【能】【让】【其】【入】【船】【侍】【奉】【客】【人】【的】，【不】【然】【出】【了】【事】，【砸】【了】【招】【牌】，【毁】【了】【名】【声】，【那】【损】【失】【可】【就】【大】【了】。” 【管】【事】【摇】【了】【摇】【头】，【解】【释】【道】：“【能】【在】【州】【之】【间】彩库宝典1.0.2安卓版【虽】【然】【每】【天】【刷】【牙】，【但】【大】【多】【数】【人】【也】【只】【是】【牙】【齿】【表】【面】【干】【净】，【口】【腔】【那】【一】【面】【的】【牙】【缝】【里】【总】【是】【有】【很】【多】【黄】【色】【的】【物】【质】，【有】【时】【用】【手】【使】【劲】【一】【抠】，【还】【能】【抠】【出】【来】【一】【些】，【放】【到】【鼻】【子】【下】【闻】【一】【闻】，【那】【感】【觉】，【大】【概】【是】【自】【己】【可】【以】【升】【天】【了】。
【雪】【羽】【儿】【疑】【惑】【的】【问】【道】：“【有】【什】【么】【福】【啊】？” 【彩】【儿】【回】【答】【道】：“【小】【姐】【日】【后】【嫁】【给】【了】【公】【子】，【那】【不】【就】【是】【有】【福】【吗】，【公】【子】【不】【是】【那】【种】【始】【乱】【终】【弃】【的】【人】，【对】【小】【姐】【绝】【对】【专】【一】，【能】【得】【公】【子】【终】【身】【独】【爱】，【那】【可】【是】【天】【大】【的】【福】【气】【呢】” 【雪】【羽】【儿】【能】【看】【得】【出】【来】【慕】【容】【奕】【喜】【欢】【他】，【虽】【然】【他】【在】【彩】【儿】【和】【彩】【霞】【口】【中】【是】【如】【此】【专】【情】【的】【人】，【可】【是】【她】【对】【他】【没】【有】【任】【何】【心】【动】，【更】【何】【况】【她】【经】
【杨】【深】【也】【不】【知】【道】【为】【什】【么】【会】【出】【现】【一】【个】【化】【成】【一】【个】【老】【人】【的】【东】【西】，【出】【现】【在】【他】【的】【幻】【想】【之】【中】，【但】【是】【这】【一】【定】【是】【他】【破】【局】【的】【关】【键】，【如】【果】【说】【能】【破】【解】【这】【个】【棋】【局】，【说】【不】【定】【他】【就】【能】【逃】【离】【这】【个】【空】【间】。 【但】【是】【怎】【么】【样】【才】【能】【够】【破】【解】【这】【个】【棋】【局】，【才】【是】【一】【个】【问】【题】【的】【关】【键】。 【不】【过】【对】【于】【杨】【深】【来】【说】【也】【不】【算】【太】【过】【麻】【烦】，【他】【从】【小】【就】【学】【过】【很】【多】【的】【一】【个】【下】【棋】【的】【方】【式】，【下】【棋】【嘛】，
“【啊】！【下】【雨】【了】。” 【春】【雨】【淅】【淅】【沥】【沥】【下】【起】【来】【了】，【春】【色】【本】【该】【喜】【人】，【渲】【染】【绿】【色】【生】【机】。【然】【而】【在】B【市】，【重】【污】【染】【城】【市】，【淅】【淅】【小】【雨】【是】【无】【法】【冲】【刷】【雾】【蒙】【蒙】PM2.5【等】【一】【系】【列】【微】【细】【尘】【埃】【的】。 【看】【看】【灰】【色】【的】【天】【空】，【雾】【霭】【罩】【住】【春】【天】【特】【有】【的】【天】【蓝】【色】【澄】【空】【以】【及】【飘】【渺】【不】【定】【的】【轻】【云】，【呈】【现】【眼】【底】【的】【只】【有】【压】【抑】【和】【紧】【迫】。 “【回】【屋】【吧】。”【郑】【郅】【锡】【拿】【了】【张】【毛】【毯】