Difference between revisions of "Apologist"
(some expand) |
(some more) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{concept | {{concept | ||
|wikipedia=https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/apologist | |wikipedia=https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/apologist | ||
| − | |description=A pejorative word for a person who | + | |description=A pejorative word for a person who a person who supports or sees nuances of a particular political or social belief. |
|image= | |image= | ||
|constitutes=word | |constitutes=word | ||
|so_called=1 | |so_called=1 | ||
}} | }} | ||
| − | An '''apologist''' is a pejorative word for person who supports a particular political or social belief, especially an unpopular one, and speaks or writes in defence of it | + | An '''apologist''' is a pejorative word for a person who supports or sees nuances of a particular political or social belief, or a foreign country, especially an unpopular one, and speaks or writes in defence of it<ref>https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/apologist</ref>. See also "[[denier]]". |
| + | *If the "apologist" is supports or sees nuances in something that is unpopular with the rulers, he or she risks [[cancelling]] and other forms of persecution. | ||
| − | [[Stephen F. Cohen]] wrote how: | + | *On the other hand, if the apologist is defending an unpopular establishment policy, he or she risks no negative consequences, but will be promoted. |
| + | |||
| + | ==Cancelling== | ||
| + | Professor [[Stephen F. Cohen]] wrote how: | ||
{{QB|I have been repeatedly assailed—no less in purportedly "[[liberal]]" publications—as [[Putin]]'s No. 1 American "[[apologist]]," "useful idiot," "dupe," "best friend" and, perhaps a new low in immature invective, "toady." I expected to be criticized, as I was during nearly twenty years as a [[CBS News]] commentator, but not in such personal and scurrilous ways. (Something has changed in our political culture, perhaps related to the [[Internet]].) None of these character assassins present any factual refutations of anything I have written or said. They indulge only in [[ad hominem]] slurs based on distortions and on the general premise that any American who seeks to understand [[Moscow]]'s perspectives is a "Putin apologist" and thus [[unpatriotic]]. Such a premise only abets the possibility of [[war]]...Equally important, however, these kinds of [[McCarthyism|neo-McCarthyites]] are trying to stifle democratic debate by stigmatizing us in ways that make us unwelcome on [[corporate media|mainstream broadcasts and op-ed pages]], and to policy-makers.<ref>https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/new-cold-war-and-necessity-patriotic-heresy/</ref>}} | {{QB|I have been repeatedly assailed—no less in purportedly "[[liberal]]" publications—as [[Putin]]'s No. 1 American "[[apologist]]," "useful idiot," "dupe," "best friend" and, perhaps a new low in immature invective, "toady." I expected to be criticized, as I was during nearly twenty years as a [[CBS News]] commentator, but not in such personal and scurrilous ways. (Something has changed in our political culture, perhaps related to the [[Internet]].) None of these character assassins present any factual refutations of anything I have written or said. They indulge only in [[ad hominem]] slurs based on distortions and on the general premise that any American who seeks to understand [[Moscow]]'s perspectives is a "Putin apologist" and thus [[unpatriotic]]. Such a premise only abets the possibility of [[war]]...Equally important, however, these kinds of [[McCarthyism|neo-McCarthyites]] are trying to stifle democratic debate by stigmatizing us in ways that make us unwelcome on [[corporate media|mainstream broadcasts and op-ed pages]], and to policy-makers.<ref>https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/new-cold-war-and-necessity-patriotic-heresy/</ref>}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Appeasement== | ||
| + | [[Appeasement]] is a variation of the theme, where anyone supporting any other option than military force is portrayed as an apologist. | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{QB|Thus, [[neoconservatives]] downplay diplomacy and compromise and routinely charge anyone who endorses it with advocating "appeasement." To the neocons, every adversary is another [[Adolf Hitler]] and it is always [[1938]].<ref>https://nationalinterest.org/greatdebate/neocons-realists/shattered-kristol-ball-3804</ref>}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Versteher== | ||
| + | In [[Germany]], the label '"Versteher'' ('someone who understands') is used in a similar pejorative way, as an apologist. [[Gabriele Krone-Schmalz]] wrote how | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{QB|Because there are no more debates in [[the leading media]] and everything that only smells of understanding with [[Russia]] is being ironed away. The "new [[Ostpolitik]]" at the beginning of the [[1970s|70s]] was also defamed as a betrayal of the Fatherland and its representatives were branded as a [[Fifth Column]]. Today, this is done with terms such as "understander of Russia", "understander of Putin" and "[[conspiracy theorist]]". Leading media have taken over the sovereignty of interpretation and anyone who wants to appear there must howl with the wolves. What is missing today is a powerful [[peace movement]] that formulates a simple, clear demand as unideologically as possible and not entangled in trench warfare: we are fed up with saber rattling, no matter on which side, we want to read, hear and see [[about detente]] policy and similar ideas it everywhere, so that we can tackle it.<ref>https://www.nachdenkseiten.de/?p=80630</ref>}} | ||
Revision as of 01:36, 23 March 2024
 "Apologist"  (word)   | |
|---|---|
| A pejorative word for a person who a person who supports or sees nuances of a particular political or social belief. |
An apologist is a pejorative word for a person who supports or sees nuances of a particular political or social belief, or a foreign country, especially an unpopular one, and speaks or writes in defence of it[1]. See also "denier".
- If the "apologist" is supports or sees nuances in something that is unpopular with the rulers, he or she risks cancelling and other forms of persecution.
- On the other hand, if the apologist is defending an unpopular establishment policy, he or she risks no negative consequences, but will be promoted.
Contents
Cancelling
Professor Stephen F. Cohen wrote how:
I have been repeatedly assailed—no less in purportedly "liberal" publications—as Putin's No. 1 American "apologist," "useful idiot," "dupe," "best friend" and, perhaps a new low in immature invective, "toady." I expected to be criticized, as I was during nearly twenty years as a CBS News commentator, but not in such personal and scurrilous ways. (Something has changed in our political culture, perhaps related to the Internet.) None of these character assassins present any factual refutations of anything I have written or said. They indulge only in ad hominem slurs based on distortions and on the general premise that any American who seeks to understand Moscow's perspectives is a "Putin apologist" and thus unpatriotic. Such a premise only abets the possibility of war...Equally important, however, these kinds of neo-McCarthyites are trying to stifle democratic debate by stigmatizing us in ways that make us unwelcome on mainstream broadcasts and op-ed pages, and to policy-makers.[2]
Appeasement
Appeasement is a variation of the theme, where anyone supporting any other option than military force is portrayed as an apologist.
Thus, neoconservatives downplay diplomacy and compromise and routinely charge anyone who endorses it with advocating "appeasement." To the neocons, every adversary is another Adolf Hitler and it is always 1938.[3]
Versteher
In Germany, the label '"Versteher ('someone who understands') is used in a similar pejorative way, as an apologist. Gabriele Krone-Schmalz wrote how
Because there are no more debates in the leading media and everything that only smells of understanding with Russia is being ironed away. The "new Ostpolitik" at the beginning of the 70s was also defamed as a betrayal of the Fatherland and its representatives were branded as a Fifth Column. Today, this is done with terms such as "understander of Russia", "understander of Putin" and "conspiracy theorist". Leading media have taken over the sovereignty of interpretation and anyone who wants to appear there must howl with the wolves. What is missing today is a powerful peace movement that formulates a simple, clear demand as unideologically as possible and not entangled in trench warfare: we are fed up with saber rattling, no matter on which side, we want to read, hear and see about detente policy and similar ideas it everywhere, so that we can tackle it.[4]
