So, I think it is a perfectly valid apology if basically the only thing you regretted about your actions was that it made someone upset
This is what makes it a non-apology.
This is what makes it a non-apology.
In this case, a honest apology would be one where Dell apologizes for hiring that moderator: if we could go back in time and hire a moderator again, we wouldn’t hire that person.
Maybe their apology for the offense is supposed to imply that (presumably, since they are apologizing, they want people to not be offended, one option for them to prevent that is to not hire people like that in the future), but why not say that directly?
(I think the view that offense doesn’t matter and can be safely ignored is extremely damaging. And besides, it’s not as though offense is the worst thing about this. Dell gave someone the stage who legitimizes very weird views that would be disastrous if they became – even more – widespread in society or even the basis for policy. That’s why people are offended. And that’s a very good reason to be offended. Yes, words do matter.)
I think it is more fair to say is that they expressed regret, but the only regret they expressed is that other people were offended by what they did. The conclusion is that if they had it to do over again, and they could find a way to do it without offending those people (keeping it secret perhaps?), they'd do it.
This issue is one that my views have changed on over the years, and I've spent some time thinking about it. I currently do sometimes give that "non-apology", if you will. What else do I say when A) someone was hurt by something I said, but B) I don't know what I should have said differently? I genuinely feel bad for someone who is hurt by my actions, even if I feel that I couldn't have predicted/avoided it.
It's kind of like when two people start talking at once--there's no real fault there; you can apologize without feeling "man, I really should have not started talking", assuming there were no cues.