3 ms·
Indeed! I most often see it used in the context of apologists defending an organization's history by hiding people for looking at history with their current val
by tomrod 2y ago
Indeed! I most often see it used in the context of apologists defending an organization's history by hiding people for looking at history with their current values. These apologists tend to miss the cases where their defended org was also seen as abysmal by people concurrent to their own time.
As a modern example, almost everyone sees Epstein as a purveyor unmitigated corruption. Imagine in 200 years people defended him because in 200 years sex trafficking is also horrible.
- watwut 2y agoHalf the time it amounts of defending past equivalents if Heydrich Himmler, arguing they were big leaders who achieved great territorial expansion and well matching ideological opinions of his peers. While radically rejecting anything a Jew, socialist, French, Czech, German who did not voted nazi, homosexual thought at the time.