LogFAQs > #913691977

Grischnak posted...

I don't buy that. Explaining the reasoning behind something is not being an apologist for it. For example, I can explain the logic behind why people own slaves. That doesn't make me a slavery apologist. As for him pandering to Nazis, are you saying people should ignore the reality of post WW1 Germany and pretend that WW2 era Germany just appeared out of the ether to ravage the world just so Neo Nazis don't have s***ty arguing points? There are explanations for why WW2 era Germany came into existence. That doesn't make why they did ok but there's no reason to ignore the reasons behind the things that happened.

I didn't really go into how correct he actually was in his explanation, but shockingly it actually turns out he wasn't. His line of reasoning relied on some simplifications of the facts of the matter, so not only was he doing the same apologia that the Nazis were doing at the time, he was also relying on a such oversimplified description of how things were that it doesn't really hold up to scrutiny This has already been pointed out on CE before.
Again, he knew exactly what he was saying, he knew it was false, and he knew who he was talking to.
---

Everything has an end, except for the sausage. It has two.