LogFAQs > #962300763

Having read a little more about the comments during the interview and her apologies, I think she was just mind-numbingly inept at articulating what she wanted to convey.

What she seems to have wanted to convey is that people will invent any absurd fiction to justify monstrous behaviour towards other groups of people. For her, because it's self-evidently absurd that Jews constituted a separate race, it meant the Holocaust wasn't "really" about race after all -- because Nazi racial theories were built on lies. Maybe I'm being charitable, but that's the hint I'm getting from her words.

But again, the point: even if race might not be real, racism is. It's not necessary for something to be an objective biological fact in order for someone to believe wholeheartedly that it is, and to build policies and practices upon that belief -- and commit horrific crimes in its name.

Most atheists, for example, wouldn't be so stupid as to say that religious conflicts aren't really religious conflicts after all, on account of sectarian differences being artificial and meaningless because God does not, in fact exist.

I think the worst that she's guilty of so far is hairsplitting, nitpicking, and failing to see the wood for the trees. The suspension was maybe necessary but I don't think sacking is.