Libertarian

[EFLImpudence]

I think I am agreeing with you. I would call someone who defended racism an apologist.

You would only do that if you were a racist.
I.e. as an insult to try to belittle and deride someone arguing against your controversial views

My point about context is simply that that person would probably not refer to themselves as an apologist.

Those who hold the accepted correct views are not called apologists.

I would say that Tony Blair was an apologist for the Bush administration,

Yes, but only if you thought Bush wrong.

but someone who believed his motivation and reasons for backing up Bush were pure and correct might call him an advocate or advocate or champion.

Exactly.

 

[Kaymo]

Damn those cheap tricky racists!

 

[RNReindeer]

Sorry EFLImpudence, I'm gonna take issue with your fist two statements.

I think I am agreeing with you. I would call someone who defended racism an apologist.

You would only do that if you were a racist.
I.e. as an insult to try to belittle and deride someone arguing against your controversial views

I disagree. If you were a racist, you wouldn't use the label against yourself, and you would believe your views were justified, however mistaken you really were.

I

My point about context is simply that that person would probably not refer to themselves as an apologist.

Those who hold the accepted correct views are not called apologists.

They could be, by the real apologists, but it would be in the wrong context.

Additionally, the label does not differentiate between right and wrong.
Someone could be called an apologist for defending say, Tory economic policy.
Just as easily someone could be an apologist for defending racism.

The label does not differentiate between right/wrong or good/bad.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Sorry EFLImpudence, I'm gonna take issue with your fist two statements.

I think I am agreeing with you. I would call someone who defended racism an apologist.

You would only do that if you were a racist.
I.e. as an insult to try to belittle and deride someone arguing against your controversial views

I disagree. If you were a racist, you wouldn't use the label against yourself, and you would believe your views were justified, however mistaken you really were.

I did't say a racist would use it against himself.
He would use it against those arguing against racism to (try to) belittle them.
Despite the actual definition - one who apologises - it is only used as an unjustified, supposed insult.
[Or of course with the state of English it could mean one who is against apologies]

My point about context is simply that that person would probably not refer to themselves as an apologist.

Those who hold the accepted correct views are not called apologists.

They could be, by the real apologists, but it would be in the wrong context.

Maybe but I don't think they would.

Additionally, the label does not differentiate between right and wrong.
Someone could be called an apologist for defending say, Tory economic policy.
Just as easily someone could be an apologist for defending racism.

The label does not differentiate between right/wrong or good/bad.

Maybe again, but I think only by those who considered Tory economic policies wrong.

 

[RNReindeer]

Sorry EFLImpudence, I'm gonna take issue with your fist two statements.

I think I am agreeing with you. I would call someone who defended racism an apologist.

You would only do that if you were a racist.
I.e. as an insult to try to belittle and deride someone arguing against your controversial views

I disagree. If you were a racist, you wouldn't use the label against yourself, and you would believe your views were justified, however mistaken you really were.

I did't say a racist would use it against himself.
He would use it against those arguing against racism to (try to) belittle them.
Despite the actual definition - one who apologises - it is only used as an unjustified, supposed insult.
[Or of course with the state of English it could mean one who is against apologies]

My point about context is simply that that person would probably not refer to themselves as an apologist.

Those who hold the accepted correct views are not called apologists.

They could be, by the real apologists, but it would be in the wrong context.

Maybe but I don't think they would.

Additionally, the label does not differentiate between right and wrong.
Someone could be called an apologist for defending say, Tory economic policy.
Just as easily someone could be an apologist for defending racism.

The label does not differentiate between right/wrong or good/bad.

Maybe again, but I think only by those who considered Tory economic policies wrong.

OK.
I agree it's used as an insult. And when it is used as an attempt at insult, but in the wrong context, it's rather backfired and shows the poor understanding of those that used it.
Other than that, the discussion is becoming convoluted and if the apologists couldn't apply the insult correctly, there's no way they're going to follow the discussion.

 

[EFLImpudence]

Reading another thread reminded me and is a good example.

LastMagicBean would consider me an apologist for cats because he hates them - even though I am right and cats are beautiful.

I would not call him an apologist for whatever he is because he is wrong.