<p>This article examines two techniques of historical injustice comparison that target norms of introspective regret associated with the <i>Age of Apology</i>. Maxing involves framing some widely recognized past injustice as a benchmark of wrongfulness, to suggest that some other, rights-abusive measure is comparatively acceptable. Saming invokes an infamous past wrong to garner attention or legitimacy for a complaint about some alleged present-day injustice. Saming also involves a further aspect: it somehow attacks the Age of Apology introspective remembrance culture or rights-protective norms associated with the injustice whose mnemonic prominence it seeks to exploit. This article examines a wide range of examples through the lenses of constitutional, social movement, and memory studies. Whereas maxing is an example of the relatively conventional, reasons-based rebuttal technique, counterframing, saming is more confounding because it eschews reasons-based rebuttal. While saming may seem superficially similar to frame alignment, its attack on introspective Age of Apology remembrance mocks the admiring stance towards predecessor cases that characterizes frame alignment. These features are best understood as indicators of a right-wing <i>ressentiment</i> that represents in microcosm the new global right’s war on hard-won rights-protective norms and understandings. The article concludes by arguing that our prevailing approach to addressing distortionary historical injustice comparisons—an approach that insists on expert-adjudicated historical accuracy—is counterproductive. Instead, I argue that a “discursive bridging” approach to deliberative engagement can be a useful countermeasure, in at least some circumstances. This involves leveraging the original appeal to past injustice in saming, however disingenuous it may be, as a possible opening for democratic dialogue.</p>