“Unapologetic” implies someone who isn’t me might see legitimate grounds to apologize where I didn’t, which makes them feel validated in dismissing me as uniquely an outlier, so I reject it out of hand That genre, you know
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @chrysopoetics
Yeah but like in the sense of my display name, one could be an unapologetic apologist, because "apology" has totally changed meaning (I know you know this, just can't sleep and am rambling)
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @BootlegGirl @chrysopoetics
Like a Christian apologist is also likely to be described as "unapologetic about his faith"
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @BootlegGirl
Oh, for sure But, like, someone stanning Peter Parker would usually not have any environmental prompts leading them to self-ID as unapologetic /or/ to call their stanning apologia, yeah?
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @chrysopoetics
Probably not, at least not in most social circles I certainly take "apologist" in the present dialect to mean "defending something unpopular"
3 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @BootlegGirl
I want to say that what I’m used to the implications being insofar as they’re different is “apologist” for “unpopular or demeaned, but it is assumed a reasonable observer would be on board with someone coming to their defense” versus “unapologetic” is for reprehensible things
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @chrysopoetics @BootlegGirl
Oh I don't see that at all, the word "apologist" is extremely loaded It's almost but not quite to the point where you're saying an "apologist" is a fundamentally bad, dishonest person (the Christian "apologists" are basically trying to reclaim the term)
2 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @BootlegGirl
Restricting possible topics to media/fan contexts roughly comparable to the spiders-mans joke in Ellie’s current display name for that, otherwise yeah ime varies wildly
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
It’s part of why it was so difficult to suss out how much people were or weren’t negging themselves when they went for the “I am unironically a pathetic [main character] apologist lmao” standpoint (Which: self-identification vs disapproving description? Maybe?)
2 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @chrysopoetics @arthur_affect
I mean, I sincerely believe J. Jonah Jameson is correct about most versions of Spider-Man. I genuinely defend the character, but expect disagreement
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes
What do you mean about that exactly, that he's a menace to the public and should go to jail?
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @chrysopoetics
Well, I don't believe in jail, but I don't see anything that Spider-Man does outside of fighting the kind of supervillain that normally only arises because he did something that can't be done by someone else. So, yeah, basically.
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @BootlegGirl @chrysopoetics
I mean I don't think the idea that he actually causes more problems than he solves genuinely makes sense from a Watsonian POV
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.