• Beat_da_Rich@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Can you give an example? I mean, providing context for a Soviet decision or elaborating on why the USSR did something doesn’t necessarily mean someone agrees with it.

    • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      What’s the difference between rationalising something and insisting on treating it in its historical and political economic context?

      I note as an aside that almost every time someone puts the Ukraine war into context, a lib will claim that this must be (uncritical) support for Russia/Putin. But one doesn’t necessarily follow the other. (I’m giving libs the benefit of the doubt here, as I don’t think most know the difference between critical and uncritical support.)

      How does one add nuance if those who’ve already come to a conclusion reject the nuance as rationalisation (apologia?) for leading to a revised conclusion.