Bob wrongs Sally by doing x. Sally gets mad and hates Bob for x. Then, Sally wrongs Bob by doing y. Bob gives Sally reparations for x, to make up for damage he caused. But Sally refuses to apologize for y.
Dilemma:
Bob is offended by y and wants to stand up for himself. BUT at the same time, Bob is sorry for x and wants to earn Sally's forgiveness for x, so Sally stops hating him for x.
If Bob tries to confront Sally about y when Sally is already angry about x, it might just escalate the anger (which Bob doesn't want, because he is trying to earn forgiveness). But, if Bob earns forgiveness for x, and lets y go, then it is against self-respect, like letting someone walk all over him, making amends for his wrongs, but letting her wrongs go.
What is the proper course of action to allow Bob to stand up for himself regarding y, while also not countering his efforts to lower Sally's hatred/anger regarding x?
EDIT: I don't want this to be too complicated - the real question is more theoretical: Is there a way to stand up against what another person did to you WHILE STILL being able to suck up to them and ask for forgiveness? Or do you have to choose one over the other because they conflict?
If Bob has to worry about Sally being allowed to walk all over him, maychance it's not a constructive relationship to maintain in the first place? If I had to engage in these types of power struggles with the other person, I'd just keep a polite distance, unless there was some other complex factor involved.
It's not a a lot of detail to go on, there's not really one true answer for the chain of events you describe here, it's all very situational and depends on the people involved.
I mean if I messed up big time enough to provoke a retaliation, I might acknowledge the other person's revenge was partly my fault, unless what I did was minor compared to what the other person did in response.
If I did something very wrong and the other person did something equally abhorrent- well it depends on what was done and on what type of relationship I had with this person.
If an apology escalated her anger, then there wouldn't really be anything I could do and I'd let her be angry and wouldn't disturb her anymore.
I wouldn't worry about being perceived as a door mat, however. If I felt an apology was deserved, I'd offer it regardless of whether the other person would admit fault as well. Even if Sally would perceive me as more of a pushover, that wouldn't really matter as I wouldn't be a pushover if pushed in future situations. I don't see how her perception of me being a coward would have any important influence on anything. But again, there's no details to go on.
No need to continue the interaction if the participants are unwilling to relinquish their grievances. They could accept the damage and move on or start over.
If Bob has to worry about Sally being allowed to walk all over him, maychance it's not a constructive relationship to maintain in the first place? If I had to engage in these types of power struggles with the other person, I'd just keep a polite distance, unless there was some other complex factor involved.
It's not a a lot of detail to go on, there's not really one true answer for the chain of events you describe here, it's all very situational and depends on the people involved.
I mean if I messed up big time enough to provoke a retaliation, I might acknowledge the other person's revenge was partly my fault, unless what I did was minor compared to what the other person did in response.
If I did something very wrong and the other person did something equally abhorrent- well it depends on what was done and on what type of relationship I had with this person.
If an apology escalated her anger, then there wouldn't really be anything I could do and I'd let her be angry and wouldn't disturb her anymore.
I wouldn't worry about being perceived as a door mat, however. If I felt an apology was deserved, I'd offer it regardless of whether the other person would admit fault as well. Even if Sally would perceive me as more of a pushover, that wouldn't really matter as I wouldn't be a pushover if pushed in future situations. I don't see how her perception of me being a coward would have any important influence on anything. But again, there's no details to go on.
What if Bob did something sufficiently big to provoke a retaliation, but then made up for his mistake by paying damages, then shouldn't Sally apologize for the retaliation or make up for that?
And I think the only difference it makes whether Bob stands up for himself or not is about him proving it to himself - that he stood up for what he believed in, whether Sally agrees or not.
What if Bob did something sufficiently big to provoke a retaliation, but then made up for his mistake by paying damages, then shouldn't Sally apologize for the retaliation or make up for that?
I don't know if the hypothetical is applicable to the specifics of the scenario in question. For example, if X is sufficiently bad enough and then is not addressed by Bob (so that it becomes even worse over time) which results in a retaliation of some sort by Sally, then maybe Bob's response is either so late or partly driven by events and thus doesn't seem adequate enough .... or maybe Sally's retaliation is part of the payment Bob has to make as part of equitable restitution.
And then of course emotions get involved.
anyway, the specifics have a large bearing on how this should be handled.
And I think the only difference it makes whether Bob stands up for himself or not is about him proving it to himself - that he stood up for what he believed in, whether Sally agrees or not.
One is the relationship between Sally and Bob and whether anything can be restored.
Another is how Sally feels about herself and how Bob feels about himself. As much as Bob wants to maintain/restore his own self-respect, it's possible Sally feels the same (which lead to her retaliation of Y).
Anyway, Bob's self-respect, Sally's self-respect, and/or the restoration of the relationship are all independent things even if the actions taken can apply to one or more of them. Maybe the relationship is unsalvageable at this point, but at least each person can feel content with their response/choices in the matter. But it's a shame they weren't able to work through things before it came to the point of retaliation.
in any case, sometimes in relationships you end up eating crow even if it's not necessarily all your fault or as much your fault as the other person believes it is. Is it really self-respect, or is it pride, or something else? I don't know. The specifics matter. each person has to be brutally honest with themselves about what they did, how they responded, and what they WANT to get out of the resolution.
Bob runs over Sally "by accident" with his car, everyone is happy....
I don't know if the hypothetical is applicable to the specifics of the scenario in question. For example, if X is sufficiently bad enough and then is not addressed by Bob (so that it becomes even worse over time) which results in a retaliation of some sort by Sally, then maybe Bob's response is either so late or partly driven by events and thus doesn't seem adequate enough .... or maybe Sally's retaliation is part of the payment Bob has to make as part of equitable restitution.
And then of course emotions get involved.
anyway, the specifics have a large bearing on how this should be handled.
You've got a few different things in play.
One is the relationship between Sally and Bob and whether anything can be restored.
Another is how Sally feels about herself and how Bob feels about himself. As much as Bob wants to maintain/restore his own self-respect, it's possible Sally feels the same (which lead to her retaliation of Y).
Anyway, Bob's self-respect, Sally's self-respect, and/or the restoration of the relationship are all independent things even if the actions taken can apply to one or more of them. Maybe the relationship is unsalvageable at this point, but at least each person can feel content with their response/choices in the matter. But it's a shame they weren't able to work through things before it came to the point of retaliation.
in any case, sometimes in relationships you end up eating crow even if it's not necessarily all your fault or as much your fault as the other person believes it is. Is it really self-respect, or is it pride, or something else? I don't know. The specifics matter. each person has to be brutally honest with themselves about what they did, how they responded, and what they WANT to get out of the resolution.
I don't think it's about restoring the relationship, I think it is mostly a matter of self-respect. I feel like I made this too complicated. The real issue boils down to, in situations like these, is there a way to call out the other person for their wrong WHILE STILL being able to suck up to them and earn forgiveness? Or do you have to choose one, as they conflict each other?
"is there a way to call out the other person for their wrong WHILE STILL being able to suck up to them and earn forgiveness? Or do you have to choose one, as they conflict each other? "
I think you need to go one additional step: What if the person who "did wrong" doesn't think they did anything wrong? That's why, as noted, it's better to have specifics. If I turn in a friend who is embezzling from our employer, did I do right or wrong? Depends on whether you're the friend or the employer or me: I'd say my friend did wrong by expecting me to ignore the embezzlement and suppress my core principles of virtue and my rational conclusion, beyond that, that the embezzlement hurt the company and therefore me because of the friendship. She thinks I did wrong because friends don't rat out friends. In that case, I think the only thing left to be said is "goodbye." Absent the specifics, "wrong" remains the worst of all possible things, an abstract generality.
I suppose it really matters the degree and nature of the offenses, but lets look at three different scenarios of varying collateral damages: x>y, x=y, and x<y. In the first, lets say Sally did a wrong but it paled in comparison to what Bob did. Demanding an apology would be highly inappropriate and very self-centered of Bob, especially without being forgiven for x.
In the second, an exact tit-for-tat occurred. Bob probably got what he deserved. Of course, it really depends on the nature(and legality) of the offense. Bob shouldn't try to approach Sally with y until after he has been forgiven for x.
Now in the the last scenario, Bob has some moral justification to reproach Sally, especially if y>2x. He should apologize for x and should offer forgiveness for y, up to and equal to x, and reproach her for anything excessively greater than x.
I suppose it really matters the degree and nature of the offenses, but lets look at three different scenarios of varying collateral damages: x>y, x=y, and x<y. In the first, lets say Sally did a wrong but it paled in comparison to what Bob did. Demanding an apology would be highly inappropriate and very self-centered of Bob, especially without being forgiven for x.
In the second, an exact tit-for-tat occurred. Bob probably got what he deserved. Of course, it really depends on the nature(and legality) of the offense. Bob shouldn't try to approach Sally with y until after he has been forgiven for x.
Now in the the last scenario, Bob has some moral justification to reproach Sally, especially if y>2x. He should apologize for x and should offer forgiveness for y, up to and equal to x, and reproach her for anything excessively greater than x.
"is there a way to call out the other person for their wrong WHILE STILL being able to suck up to them and earn forgiveness? Or do you have to choose one, as they conflict each other? "
I think you need to go one additional step: What if the person who "did wrong" doesn't think they did anything wrong? That's why, as noted, it's better to have specifics. If I turn in a friend who is embezzling from our employer, did I do right or wrong? Depends on whether you're the friend or the employer or me: I'd say my friend did wrong by expecting me to ignore the embezzlement and suppress my core principles of virtue and my rational conclusion, beyond that, that the embezzlement hurt the company and therefore me because of the friendship. She thinks I did wrong because friends don't rat out friends. In that case, I think the only thing left to be said is "goodbye." Absent the specifics, "wrong" remains the worst of all possible things, an abstract generality.
Well let's say Bob believes y was wrong, and he doesn't know whether Sally agrees as he has not brought it up. Does he have a course of action to bring it up without affecting his goal of getting Sally to stop hating him for x? Or would he have to forgo that goal if he wants to bring y up?
What if Bob did something sufficiently big to provoke a retaliation, but then made up for his mistake by paying damages, then shouldn't Sally apologize for the retaliation or make up for that?
Should or should not doesn't matter, what Sally chooses to do does. Bob's action is based on what Sally actually chooses to do, not what he wishes she would do. (In the latter cases we get people who are stuck in wishful ideas of people, not the actual people. A man doesn't divorce his abusive wife because he looks to what he wishes she is and should do, not what she actually is and does).
If she did something unforgivable and don't want to apologize or make amends, then Bob must make a decision based on that.
And I think the only difference it makes whether Bob stands up for himself or not is about him proving it to himself - that he stood up for what he believed in, whether Sally agrees or not.
Well, he could choose a different idea of what it means to stand up to himself so he doesn't make a simple matter like this conflicting.
Make apology when done wrong --> has self respect
Distance oneself if other party doesn't show remorse --> stands up for oneself
Though, I don't see the necessity about bringing ideas of "self respect" and "standing up for oneself" into the matter. If Sally pushes Bob around in a matter where he is forced to think about these things, the relationship should not be continued. It means overall Bob is being pushed around because Sally isn't respecting his boundaries. Which makes Bob feel like he has to actively "stand up for himself" or Sally will push him around. (Unless this response is automatically triggered because Bob experienced abuse in his past and this is the way in which he thinks people think, or the way he feels he needs to behave to counter abuse). In a healthy relationship, Sally would not push boundaries to a point where Bob is forced to push back. Perhaps Bob should ponder whether he is being used and manipulated by Sally.
It seems Bob is overly preoccupied by the external response from Sally, when he should instead focusing on what is and himself. He can not choose what Sally does, he can only make choices for himself. He has to accept that he can't change other people. And when other people make chooses that are harmful for Bob, he needs to deal with that internally in a way that makes him cope.
Yeah, maybe it sucks if Sally never shows remorse and apologize, but at least then Bob will know Sally's true nature and mayhaps he will have learned something new from the experience, albeit in a painful manner.
I don't think it's about restoring the relationship, I think it is mostly a matter of self-respect. I feel like I made this too complicated. The real issue boils down to, in situations like these, is there a way to call out the other person for their wrong WHILE STILL being able to suck up to them and earn forgiveness? Or do you have to choose one, as they conflict each other?
People can't hear apologies when they're immediately followed by finger-pointing.
There are some wrongs that leave you with no emotional room to hear anything else. Having to deal with the other person's grievance when you're trying to process what was done to you can feel like a real slap in the face and make any apologies feel insincere.
I think we can learn from minorities/women's interest groups/rape survivors here - learn to create a 'safe space' for each person, rather than view each wrong in competition with the others.
The idea with a 'safe space' is that you don't have the offending parties/ignorant people come in and tell the victims how things should be, what they should feel, or talk about their own issues as if it somehow cancels out the victims' issues. Rather, you give the space over entirely to the other person, and allow them to feel safe expressing their perception of the situation as they experienced it. Being allowed this space doesn't make other issues invisible - it simply allows for the complete processing of each individual's pain.* Two wrongs really don't make a right. They are both wrong, and they both need to be looked at individually. When emotions are calmer, you can each step away and look at the big picture of your own shared fallibility, but if either is not ready, this big picture cannot be seen and will simply be seen as an attempt to invalidate the other's experience.
*
An example of this is in women's spaces vs men's spaces. Each side feels it's an unwelcome intrusion when the opposite gender comes in and starts complaining about their side's problems when the post is about the original group's. It is entirely true that the problem of unequal treatment needs to be looked at as a whole; however the place to do that is when all parties involved are not emotionally flooded and thus have the capacity to step back. It isn't fair or useful to try to force this mindstate on someone else according to your own timing. The lesson here is that focusing on the emotional experiences for one side of the issue doesn't mean the other side has ceased to exist.
Couples should feel they have a safe space with each other. It won't always be their turn to air their misery, but both should definitely be able to share how they feel with the other, even when this is negative, and come to mutual resolution.
Don't see it as a choice between the two, either standing up for himself or asking for forgiveness, in principle. Sure, in this specific relationship it may be that there's never been any room for how Bob feels on anything, and Sally may be controlling. Or Sally may have issues that run really deep which prevent her from being the supportive partner she should be, and may need to get help. But in general, each grievance needs to be fully heard, accepted and processed by *both* partners, and not in competition with the other's grievance. At the end of the day you do want to integrate the idea that you've both hurt each other into your understanding of the relationship - but if the offence is a large one, it isn't always possible to do this right away. What the offended party needs to hear when they're talking about how they feel is that you completely accept and understand it and are truly remorseful for what happened. The bigger the emotional injury, the less room there is for any conflicting perspective, any mitigating factors, etc, because they are overwhelmed with their own feelings and literally unable to process yours. They need to know the emotional injury they see will be tended to by their partner, because the partner is in the difficult position of being both perpetrator and caretaker.
This open acceptance actually helps the overwhelmed partner offload some of their emotional processing and helps them calm down/recover faster, whereas attempting to push fairness or conflict resolution for the offender's problem simply contributes more to emotional overload, because they now have another emotional angle to process. This can lead to a breakdown/freakout as the brain is unable to cope with the demands being made on it. (This isn't a gender difference either - plenty of men stonewall as a result of flooding; they simply shut down or detach entirely.)
Once the offended party feels "safe", they should make a move towards integrating the other's perspective. However, having the offender rush this process according to their own timing is almost never a good idea because their interaction is still too charged. A qualified mediator (counsellor) would need to be brought in if either side feels the process isn't progressing healthily, because both offender and offended are in danger of being harmed.
So I'd amend Min's suggestion to this:
Bob said:
"My behaviour was unacceptable and I'm sorry. What you did hurt me a lot as well, and we need to talk about that at some point. But while we're talking about what I did, we'll focus entirely on that, because I alone am responsible for my behaviour, and you hurting me doesn't make that any less true."
This gives Sally her safe space, while still being aware that she will need to step forward at some point. When talking about Bob's grievance, the same thoughts can be applied. If Sally is unable to do this, or has no space to talk about this with Bob yet, then they should consider seeing a counsellor. Either she is still overwhelmed, or she doesn't have the skills to separate areas of responsibility and give each its due attention. Whatever the case, at some point Bob's problem does need to be resolved to mutual satisfaction, unless he is genuinely able to let it go. He just needs to not let this affect the whole-hearted resolution of the wrong he has committed.
*Edited to add:
Integration of a multi-faceted understanding of the offence, taking into account the offender's perspective, is important. Remaining stuck in a perpetrator/victim mentality on any issue isn't healthy long-term (imo) and will harm the relationship. Integration and understanding is always necessary - however, emotional processing and a feeling of safety is equally necessary, and for the initial stages, impossible to properly proceed without.
If both are able to commit to at least attempting to reach this eventual stage of integration, then a temporary state acknowledging perpetrator/victim roles, and the differing deference due both, is helpful in discharging feelings of betrayal, guilt, responsibility, rage, loss, identity dissolution, etc.
Or Bob can stop with that stupid drama and keep on with his life.
omg you wrong me!bla bla bla
What a waste of time,if she does not want to apologize than he should just take it into account and decide to do with it whatever he want.
EDIT: I don't want this to be too complicated - the real question is more theoretical: Is there a way to stand up against what another person did to you WHILE STILL being able to suck up to them and ask for forgiveness? Or do you have to choose one over the other because they conflict?
To revisit: In general, it goes badly if you mix the two.
So if Bob was the instigator, he should suck it up and deal with his own mistake first.
Then give Sally time to reconsider her position. If she doesn't, after the situation has cooled down, he can revisit it with her. That might or might not go well.
The most he can do is tell Sally how he felt by her decision, and then he can decide how he wants to engage Sally (or not) in the future.
While the incidents are related (Sally might not have done it if she wasn't already pissed at Bob), they are also separate (Bob's transgression was his own choice, and Sally's transgression was her own choice). Which is what is confusing the matter.
It depends on what your goal is. You might feel very different with the same outcome, if your goal was to have Sally forgive/like you versus simply feeling like you got to speak your mind. You cannot determine Sally's response, but you can determine your own goals.
I think the key is to have both grievances addressed separately, at least initially. I'd actually disagree with Min's suggestion:
People can't hear apologies when they're immediately followed by finger-pointing.
There are some wrongs that leave you with no emotional room to hear anything else. Having to deal with the other person's grievance when you're trying to process what was done to you can feel like a real slap in the face and make any apologies feel insincere.
I think we can learn from minorities/women's interest groups/rape survivors here - learn to create a 'safe space' for each person, rather than view each wrong in competition with the others.
The idea with a 'safe space' is that you don't have the offending parties/ignorant people come in and tell the victims how things should be, what they should feel, or talk about their own issues as if it somehow cancels out the victims' issues. Rather, you give the space over entirely to the other person, and allow them to feel safe expressing their perception of the situation as they experienced it. Being allowed this space doesn't make other issues invisible - it simply allows for the complete processing of each individual's pain.* Two wrongs really don't make a right. They are both wrong, and they both need to be looked at individually. When emotions are calmer, you can each step away and look at the big picture of your own shared fallibility, but if either is not ready, this big picture cannot be seen and will simply be seen as an attempt to invalidate the other's experience.
*
An example of this is in women's spaces vs men's spaces. Each side feels it's an unwelcome intrusion when the opposite gender comes in and starts complaining about their side's problems when the post is about the original group's. It is entirely true that the problem of unequal treatment needs to be looked at as a whole; however the place to do that is when all parties involved are not emotionally flooded and thus have the capacity to step back. It isn't fair or useful to try to force this mindstate on someone else according to your own timing. The lesson here is that focusing on the emotional experiences for one side of the issue doesn't mean the other side has ceased to exist.
Couples should feel they have a safe space with each other. It won't always be their turn to air their misery, but both should definitely be able to share how they feel with the other, even when this is negative, and come to mutual resolution.
Don't see it as a choice between the two, either standing up for himself or asking for forgiveness, in principle. Sure, in this specific relationship it may be that there's never been any room for how Bob feels on anything, and Sally may be controlling. Or Sally may have issues that run really deep which prevent her from being the supportive partner she should be, and may need to get help. But in general, each grievance needs to be fully heard, accepted and processed by *both* partners, and not in competition with the other's grievance. At the end of the day you do want to integrate the idea that you've both hurt each other into your understanding of the relationship - but if the offence is a large one, it isn't always possible to do this right away. What the offended party needs to hear when they're talking about how they feel is that you completely accept and understand it and are truly remorseful for what happened. The bigger the emotional injury, the less room there is for any conflicting perspective, any mitigating factors, etc, because they are overwhelmed with their own feelings and literally unable to process yours. They need to know the emotional injury they see will be tended to by their partner, because the partner is in the difficult position of being both perpetrator and caretaker.
This open acceptance actually helps the overwhelmed partner offload some of their emotional processing and helps them calm down/recover faster, whereas attempting to push fairness or conflict resolution for the offender's problem simply contributes more to emotional overload, because they now have another emotional angle to process. This can lead to a breakdown/freakout as the brain is unable to cope with the demands being made on it. (This isn't a gender difference either - plenty of men stonewall as a result of flooding; they simply shut down or detach entirely.)
Once the offended party feels "safe", they should make a move towards integrating the other's perspective. However, having the offender rush this process according to their own timing is almost never a good idea because their interaction is still too charged. A qualified mediator (counsellor) would need to be brought in if either side feels the process isn't progressing healthily, because both offender and offended are in danger of being harmed.
So I'd amend Min's suggestion to this:
This gives Sally her safe space, while still being aware that she will need to step forward at some point. When talking about Bob's grievance, the same thoughts can be applied. If Sally is unable to do this, or has no space to talk about this with Bob yet, then they should consider seeing a counsellor. Either she is still overwhelmed, or she doesn't have the skills to separate areas of responsibility and give each its due attention. Whatever the case, at some point Bob's problem does need to be resolved to mutual satisfaction, unless he is genuinely able to let it go. He just needs to not let this affect the whole-hearted resolution of the wrong he has committed.
*Edited to add:
Integration of a multi-faceted understanding of the offence, taking into account the offender's perspective, is important. Remaining stuck in a perpetrator/victim mentality on any issue isn't healthy long-term (imo) and will harm the relationship. Integration and understanding is always necessary - however, emotional processing and a feeling of safety is equally necessary, and for the initial stages, impossible to properly proceed without.
If both are able to commit to at least attempting to reach this eventual stage of integration, then a temporary state acknowledging perpetrator/victim roles, and the differing deference due both, is helpful in discharging feelings of betrayal, guilt, responsibility, rage, loss, identity dissolution, etc.
Actually, I can't find much fault with your take on this, Cheese. Very insightful. However, I do have a minor suggestion to add onto it...
Due to the fact that both parties may need to create a safe space with which to process their own independent grievances, it may be helpful to utilize space and precise methods of communication.
The depths of these grievances are unclear but should they run deep, appropriate space may make any sort of direct, face to face communication counter productive with a sort of white noise effect clouding the judgement and processing of either party. Thus, a journal or similar medium may allow each party to express themselves in a manner that allows them to come to understand their own grievances, separate it from what they have afflicted their partner or friend with, and to begin to process it on their own before trying to engage with each other.
When they have reached a point of rationality whereby more direct methods of communication are feasible, having a mediator present who can focus on the primary points which must be communicated or simply a message passed through written/typed media with a clear delineation of each party's intention's and feelings concerning the issue may be a step in the right direction.
Long story short, sometimes the best resolution is the ability to give each other time and space... then to re-engage in small steps, over time.
Though with the addition that processing it on one's own isn't enough, since part of the necessary discharge is knowing one's anger, sense of betrayal, etc is acknowledged and understood by the other. This is if the relationship is to survive. Otherwise, the damaged party may be able to move on with their life, but not with their partner. The difficulty is that to heal the breach in relational safety, the offending party must be the one who at some point puts aside their needs and demonstrates a returned commitment to a 'safe space' (since breaches are caused when one does the opposite - ignores the partner's needs entirely and places oneself first). Offloading this entirely to a third party till one is calmer may help make interaction smoother in the short term but may not restore trust and intimacy - this trust and intimacy must be demonstrated, and is especially important to demonstrate in times of severe distress, and even more important when this distress is caused by a breach. The attachment injury must be healed or it withers - the mind may be clear, but the emotional, primal memory of being abandoned will have been laid down and is hard to correct. I'm not sure if you were implicitly including this, so I added it in just to be clear (though also with the disclaimer that this is my opinion).
Completely agree with learning to separate their grievance from what they have afflicted their partner with before full engagement though.
I see people have very different ideas of what this conflict and relationship is about. I've been imagining a work or friend relationship where the offense is fairly minor but Bob and Sally has pufferfished themselves up about it.
"Is there a way to stand up against what another person did to you WHILE STILL being able to suck up to them and ask for forgiveness? Or do you have to choose one over the other because they conflict?"
Well yes but if you have to ask for the solution it's probably beyond your skill to execute.
This site uses cookies to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies. We have no personalisation nor analytics --- especially no Google.
