Is that different from un-denial?

"Al Franken's Calculated Strategy of Non-Denial/This isn’t a he-said, she-said story. Two women are giving their stories, and the Minnesota Democrat is just emitting vapor," by Ramesh Ponnuru (at Bloomberg).

I'm noticing the "un-"/"non-" distinction this morning.

"Nondenial," like "nonapology," is clearly understood to be different from "undenial" (and "unapology"). "Undenial" would seem to be taking back a denial, and "unapology" would seem to be taking back an apology. A "nondenial" is something you say that seems to be in the place of a true denial, but that might work as a denial for people who don't look closely. It's denying without lying, when you really did do it. Similarly, a "nonapology" — such as "I'm sorry that anyone was offended" — is a way to apologize without providing what most of us think of as necessary elements to an apology, conceding that you did what other people are offended by and that you, like them, know it was wrong.

Ponnuru's point is:

If he admits it, especially in this moment of righteous anger against male sexual entitlement, pressure to resign will mount.... If he denies the accusations, on the other hand, he will be at least implicitly attacking his accusers....

Franken keeps responding by talking about feelings: his feelings, the women’s feelings, and his feelings about their feelings... Listen, without believing, or disbelieving. Without, that is, taking their claims seriously. It is a rhetorical strategy as clever as it is shameless. At the moment it appears to be working.

Is it working? We've taken to making fun of it here on Althouse. Why, just this morning, in the post about the aftermath of the Wisconsin/Ohio State football game, Meade said:

I just want to say I am going to take time to reflect on this, to educate myself daily, and to strive towards a more enlightened path. I want to ensure that all voices around me are heard, and that everyone is treated respectfully and empathetically. More than anything, I want to create an environment that is a better, safer and fairer place.

I had to Google to see which of the many nonapolgizers Meade had patterned that on, and I found out and said:

A man named Becky.

My link goes to a November 13th piece in Vanity Fair, "Louis C.K.’s Former Manager Dave Becky Apologizes for 'Perceived Cover-Up'/Becky issued a mea culpa for chastising the two female comedians who first came forward about Louis C.K.’s predatory behavior." From that article:

Becky, who dropped C.K. as a client shortly after the comedian confirmed the allegations, says that he initially thought Wolov and Goodman were spreading a rumor about the two of them having a consensual sexual encounter with C.K., who was then a married man.

“Albeit enormously embarrassing, in no way did I interpret the interaction as threatening or nonconsensual,” he wrote. “I misperceived the casual way the story was portrayed to me—instead I should have recognized that it must have been a mask for their unease and discomfort in the face of his detestable behavior.”

ADDED:  Becky takes the blame for what he portrays as the deceitfulness of the women. They wore "a mask" and seemed "casual," and he took their outward presentation to convey their inner feelings and concluded they'd had "a consensual sexual encounter with C.K." Now, Becky is saying he was wrong not to realize that women wear "a mask." He should have "recognized" the mask and seen through it to "their unease and discomfort in the face of his detestable behavior."

So was it even possible for anyone to consent to watching Louis C.K. masturbate? Was the behavior objectively detestable, and if a woman came forward to say, I thought it was hilarious and raw and that's what I love about Louis, and I was touched to be included in his intimate, revelatory moment, that woman would be wrong?

Or is it that the woman is never wrong, and the man is going to need ever more time to reflect on this and educate himself daily and ensure that the voices around him are heard. This hypothesized woman must be treated respectfully and empathetically. As you create an environment that is a better, safer and fairer place, you'd better be sure you don't assume she's wearing a mask for her unease and discomfort. You'd be descending into the sexist stereotype of women as full of guile and never telling a straight story.

And since we're talking about a "mask for their unease and discomfort," why don't I take you into the endless labyrinth of language and ask you whether it might perhaps be nonease and noncomfort, or at least unease and uncomfort... or is it disease and discomfort...? And before you answer, you'd better remember that I am a woman, and you'd better take time to reflect and educate yourself. Ask whether you are striving towards a more enlightened path... or I've got to say "striving" is too masculine and to treat me respectfully and empathetically, you need to meander and stop now and then to sniff the flowers as you traipse toward a more enlightened path. Be creative! Create an environment that is a better, safer and fairer place.