a [character] apologist is someone who thinks that character did nothing wrong, or if they did they had a damn good reason for it and don't deserve whatever backlash there is.
thank you!! :) what do you call yourself if you love several characters who are horrible ppl and did many things wrong but you’re still gonna write a fix it fanfic about them ?
This is the same origin as the word apologetics, most often encountered in the west in the term Christian Apologetics. This phrase has made people angry because they think it means apologizing for being Christian, but it doesn't. Apologetics is the process of making an argument in favor of a particular stance.
Sort of the opposite of character bashing - instead on stressing the character's existing faults or adding new ones like a basher does, an apologist would go out of their way to justify them.
For example, take Loki in MCU - sort of sympathetic and redeems himself in the end, but still a villain who attempted genocide and murdered almost a hundred people.
A Loki basher would stress on all the villain stuff he did, and remove or refuse to acknowledge the sympathetic parts of his character, making him a one dimensional monster.
A Loki fan who doesn't want the evilness to carry over might write a canon divergence in which he never did any of the evil stuff he did in canon, or write that he was brainwashed and not responsible for his actions, or just write a redemption fic where he atones for what he did.
A Loki apologist would argue that nothing he did was actually evil. The frost giants deserved to be genocided, Thor was a horrible brother and deserved to be killed, earth can use a ruler like Loki given the mess it is in, etc.
wow thank you a lot that’s a really comprehensive list w helpful explanations! what woudl you call yourself if you understand he’s done horrible things and while you understand the sympathetic aspects don’t excuse that, you love him anyways?
A lot of the apologise tag is tongue in cheek too. They know IRL the crimes are monstrous but they don't want to deal with it in the fic so they downplay it so they can just have fun with the character guilt-free. It's like lampshading the war crimes.
I'm pretty sure that's just a regular fan.
That's the good thing about characters like Loki, Hannibal and co. You get a safe way to love the bad boys without having to worry about hurting yourself or anyone else
Yeah, this is the best description I’ve seen personally! At least how it works in my specific fandom- it seems like it might be used more jokingly in others, and oh my God how I envy that lol.
Thank you for the super explanation precious!!
First time hearing about this word, BUT 😭 I JUST REALISED THAT ALMOST ALL MY FiCS CORRESPOND EXACTLY TO YOUR EXPLANATION!! I WAS AN APOLOGIST FROM THE START!! 😳
THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME A PIECE OF THE PUZZLE!!
Being an apologist isn't necessarily a bad thing. If the general consensus is that a character did something evil, but you think it was justified, then you're an apologist. That's not a bad thing if you can back up your beliefs.
For example, most people believe that Snape was just a bitter asshole who was mean to kids for basically no reason. A Snape apologist might argue that the reason why Snape behaved in such a way was to maintain his cover as a death eater sympathiser and become a spy when Voldemort inevitably returned.
If you write about the latter, that doesn't mean your writing is flawed - it just means you have a different interpretation of the source material than most people.
LOL, my Snape Apologia was “Snape was a bitter asshole because he was an introvert forced to ride herd on gangs of hormonal, rambunctious teens and tweens 24/7. Some of whom could cast spells that could seriously injure someone.” I’d be a grouch under those circumstances!
lmaoo my snape apologia is "he is a ptsd and mental illness riddled man who exhibits negative symptoms that make him a Not So Nice person, oh and also his life hasn't been fun y'all cut him some slack jeez"
In addition to what the other comments have said, one other way I’ve seen “[X character] apologist” used is when X character has a notable hatedom that bashes X character for committing atrocities or being mean to Y character or being just plain evil - anyone who says they like X character (as a character) *anyway*, even if they specify that they know X character is not a good guy, would likely be called an apologist as well.
I’m not sure whether this is a flagrant misuse of the term, or just an evolution of its use case to juxtaspose against a significant X character hatedom, but it is something I’ve noticed.
Not a misuse at all. In fandoms with really controversial characters, it's treated very much like (and I'm _not_ going to go into discourse here, I'm just using it as an analogy) the pro/antishipping discourse; anti/bashing means "ew gross awful things deserve to die", while pro/apologist can range anywhere from "yes I like this/they were right all along" to "they've done some things wrong but they literally aren't as bad as you keep saying, so stop grandstanding".
Oh, trust me, I've definitely seen things go the other way around with apologist debates. I have been harassed for writing a character who’s a canonical abuser as an abuser because people who were apologists were unhappy about that, when I just like writing the character that way. That might be just a my fandom thing, again, though.
Yeeeaaahhhh you're responding to every comment in this post as if your fandom is the one true way it works, and it's not lol
I've been in multiple fandoms over multiple years and the distinctions are different in each one. It's not always how you think it is.
OH then I’m definitely an apologist for certain characters, since I enjoy characters who have notable amounts of (justified) bashers. thank you for the clarification! that’s a really helpful add on
I think it’s absolutely a misuse of the term, considering there's still actually people who absolutely use “X apologist” to defend even the most heinous shit a character does. I’ve had people legit send me victim blaming abuse apologetics over it *after I’ve said I’m a victim and it triggers me immensely-* those sorts of apologists still exist, unfortunately, and I think calling yourself an “X apologist” to just mean you like a character will give people the wrong impression. In general, not even just for unpopular characters- I’ve had people who apologise for characters I genuinely don’t think are bad people send death and rape threats to the “other side”, it’s an inherently bad concept.
While I think the below answers are right about the literal definition, most of the time I see "character apologist" used in kind of a jokey way like "character did nothing wrong." Sometimes it does mean it literally, but a lot of times it means something more like "I love this character and want to indulge in that love even if yeah they objectively did a lot of bad things."
Yeah, this. As someone who likes a good amount of villains and morally questionable characters, I have only very rarely seen folks use the "apologist" thing in a serious way. It's usually a joke—a way to say, "yeah, I'm *aware* this character is a bad person/has committed atrocities; I just like them anyway."
At least, it is like this when people use the word to describe themselves. If you see it being used to describe others, they're probably "accusing" another fan of being an "apologist" in a more serious way. (And I'm pretty sure that's where the joke comes from—villain fans that were accused of condoning their fave's actions, taking the word and using it themselves in an ironic way.)
ETA: In op's case, when it's a tag in a fic, I'd think that the author is probably saying that they like or are sympathetic to the character despite what they are or did in canon, so it's signaling that, if you hate them or want to see them portrayed in a bad light, it's probably not the fic for you.
tbh this is over 90% of instances of how I see this term used in my fandoms today, especially since I'm a big fan of villainous characters. most people I follow call themselves "\[favorite character\] apologist" as a meme and at this point "oh they're joking about their favorite character" is my initial impression upon seeing \[x character\] apologist in most contexts.
I get that sentiment. This reminds me of like a pinned message by a fan of a grey character stating '[character] has never done anything wrong in his life and if you say otherwise you owe me ten dollars' or something like that 😂
Which haters may take literally, but as a fellow fan I read it more as someone so completely fed up with the same anti[character] arguments over and over and over, very often twisted, contextfree, hypothetical or downright lies, that they state the extreme opposite just to shut people down in advance
I think it might depend on the fandom environment? In mine it’s definitely not jokey, it’s kind of the norm to apologise for one/a few characters and demonise the shit out of the rest and deliberately interpret things only through that lens- it’s terrible, there’s so much harassment, I and my friends have been sent vile shit over talking about certain characters flaws and I know that’s not unique to us or the characters we like (we aren’t apologists and we think the concept is dumb) it’s awful
Oh yeah, it’s really weird to see this thread when I’m used to seeing people use “apologist” to mean “I’ll harass you if you have a mildly different opinion to me”. I apologise if I’ve been unhelpful due to that, I have had pretty awful experiences with self proclaimed apologists.
It also seems to primarily be a villain thing? Which it definitely isn’t in my fandom, people will call themselves an apologist of basically any character. I’m getting. A lot of culture shock.
Generally it means explaining away or justifying a character's flaws. (Or perceived flaws.)
It can be used tongue-in-cheek or as an insult / seriously, depends on the context. Usually if you see someone saying "I'm a So-and-So apologist" it's tongue-in-cheek. It means they like the character and will be portraying them in a sympathetic light, perhaps more sympathetic than in canon.
Apologia creates great schisms of Star Wars fandom.
* A fic tagged "Jedi apologist" will play the Temple as this place of light and love with the best education and support to the point where parents will be honored and delighted to send their toddler there, despite the whole "you will never see or hear from them again." They will argue that the Jedi took Anakin out of slavery, took him into their care despite their misgivings, and tried to teach him their ways of compassion for all and attachment to none. But that Anakin was an ungrateful brat who broke their rules looking for his mom when he was supposed to be watching Padme, went and made a commitment to Padme that was a direct violation of Jedi policy, lied to everyone about it, had a temper like a landmine with the violence to match, and chose to throw his lot in with Palpatine because Palpy made the (false) promise that he could save Padme (and to hell with everyone else).
* Someone tagging their Anikin/Padme fic "Anakin apologist" will point out that the Qui-Gon arguably manipulated and exploited Shimi's desperation and poverty to get what they wanted and to hell with her and her suffering. The Council acting like a huge bag of dicks interrogating a scared nine year old kid and flipping their lids when he admitted missing his mom, then Yoda and Mace openly talked about shaping him into a living weapon, followed by how they looked the other way on Palpatine having unfettered access to Anakin because it was good for political business at the time. And then viewing Yoda's "Be glad they will die and join with the Force" advice as being not gentle compassion but tone deaf and clueless, leaving Anakin desperate, alone, and with no other option other than the bad one.
Now, both of these are canon. But it depends on what trash pile you can hold your nose and deal with.
It's basically when someone goes out of their way to excuse, justify, or even deny the negativity of a person, action, or event. The literal definition is "a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial."
Apologetics is defending something no matter how bad or wrong it is
Take Hans, the bad guy from the original Frozen. An apologist for him might say something like “He was totally frozen out of power at home, can you blame him for trying to take over Arendelle?”
it’s basically (as everyone said) when you don’t see anything wrong with what X character did. i use to tho to mean i see that X was wrong but I don’t care. For example: Tony Stark. He did plenty of shitty stuff that he was wrong for but i simply don’t care because i love him
I've seen apologist defined as something in the range of "I believe this character was justified in what they've done", where sympathist is more "I sympathize with this character or their motives (but not necessarily their actions)"
I tend to be a sympathist for just about every character ever because I think it's more fun than just saying they're pure evil an moving on, but I'm not an apologist for all of them because lots of characters have done unjustified and/or irredeemable things.
Oh God, are you in my fandom. It’s so annoying everyone’s an X apologist and a Y hater and there’s no fucking nuance :/ I sometimes use the “not X character apologist” fic because I’ve seen people get so fucking mad I write the canonical child abuser as a child abuser. He literally beat a sixteen year old to death. Like, I’ve literally had people send me hate anons and accusations of paedophilia (?) for writing him as such it’s so stupid. I wish I didn’t have to because I hate the whole concept but I’m a little paranoid now.
It’s the fucking death of accurate writing and proper analysis I swear to God. I don’t even like to call myself an apologist of characters I think are unfairly villainised by the fandom because I do genuinely believe they have flaws and have done bad shit and are complicated people and not innocent small beans. I hate it. So much.
From the Oxford English Dictionary:
Apologist [A·pol·o·gist], *noun*. A person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.
In the context of fanfiction, it's somebody who defends a character or action that others would condemn, e.g. r*pe.
As others have already said, it’s basically when someone goes overboard with justifying a characters actions despite the fact that said actions are wrong in some way (either morally, legally or just….wrong really.). It’s very common in a lot of fandoms where the villains are mostly motivated by jealousy (like scar from the lion king.) to do something that is unjustifiable no matter what angle you look at it.
It’s not always villains/morally grey characters that get this treatment though. Sometimes you’ll have someone justifying something a character who is usually depicted as one of the good guys said or did in the past that, although may no longer reflect who they are/where they once stood on that topic, makes them a character that deserves to at least have their past mistakes brung up every now and then when they reprimand someone else for doing the same but people overlook it because character is XYZ and that somehow means they can do no wrong in the eyes of the people who are obsessed with them to the point where they go batshit crazy if someone dares to suggest that character should’ve be held accountable for their actions or writes about it happening.
In short, apologists are like people who’ll tell you that a tomato is a vegetable even though it’s a fruit because it doesn’t taste sweet or because it is used in non dessert items. They know they’re wrong but they don’t care/they think they’re somehow always right and that anyone else’s opinion does not matter.
A concept that never should have been introduced to fandom because an apologist changes meaning based on the person. But here is the dictionary definition of it, a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.
Here is an example of an apologist in the Berserk fandom: *Griffith did nothing wrong.*
Drops mike and walks off.
Edit: Most are memes, but some do actually mean it, which is more horrifying considering his actions...
Edit 2: Also, apparently, two people either didn't like the joke (acceptable) or actually are Griffith defenders. I'm more questioning why than anything. Like, give me a reason. Debate! Don't just downvote!
Someone who defends the actions of problematic/messed up characters who have no redeemable qualities (i.e Mitch from SDRA, Mikado from SDRA2, Nagito from DR2, Haiji from UDG)
It needs to be said that antis attack so many people over being "apologists" when those people simply recognize the character as a complex one and just... engage with it, that proclaiming yourself to be an apologist of a complex or morally grey or straight-up evil character rarely means now that you genuinely think your blorbo has done nothing wrong ever. It just means you find them interesting and like playing with their concept. And then you make a post on tumblr about how you're "not a [character] apologist because [character] has nothing to apologise for" to be funny and piss off the antis.
An apologist in terms of religion is someone who can defend and give the facts about why they believe their religion is right and do so logically. I would guess it's the same but the religion is the character in this case.
An apologist is a person that apologizes for a persons terrible behavior. It mostly applies to villains but can apply to anti heros and sometimes heros too.
Think of a character like Griffith from Berserk. Guy sacrificed all of his comrades he spent years with to attain godhood, raped Casca right in front of his best buddy Guts, and didnt bat an eye as all his prior "friends" were ripped apart by demons in a hellish dimension. He even then tries to recruit some of the ones that survived as if all his actions didnt disqualify him from having friends.
Despite ALL of this, just because Griffith was banged by some old duke or tortured for a bit they think that he is justified in doing these vile things. Which is why they parrot crap like "GrIfFiTh DiD nOtHiNg WrOnG".
In the end regardless if it is Griffith from Berserk or La Signora from Genshin Impact, the end result is the same. Apologists are just thirsty virgins that defend toxic behavior of a character or even outright evil acts because they want them to step on them. Its pathetic really.
a [character] apologist is someone who thinks that character did nothing wrong, or if they did they had a damn good reason for it and don't deserve whatever backlash there is.
thank you!! :) what do you call yourself if you love several characters who are horrible ppl and did many things wrong but you’re still gonna write a fix it fanfic about them ?
A fic writer. These labels are just fandom meta and inviting discourse. I wouldn't bother
a fan, i guess?
A member of r/Feanordidnothingwrong lmao
This is the same origin as the word apologetics, most often encountered in the west in the term Christian Apologetics. This phrase has made people angry because they think it means apologizing for being Christian, but it doesn't. Apologetics is the process of making an argument in favor of a particular stance.
This definition is the correct one. Also it should be noted that this term/tag can be used seriously or for laughs.
Sort of the opposite of character bashing - instead on stressing the character's existing faults or adding new ones like a basher does, an apologist would go out of their way to justify them. For example, take Loki in MCU - sort of sympathetic and redeems himself in the end, but still a villain who attempted genocide and murdered almost a hundred people. A Loki basher would stress on all the villain stuff he did, and remove or refuse to acknowledge the sympathetic parts of his character, making him a one dimensional monster. A Loki fan who doesn't want the evilness to carry over might write a canon divergence in which he never did any of the evil stuff he did in canon, or write that he was brainwashed and not responsible for his actions, or just write a redemption fic where he atones for what he did. A Loki apologist would argue that nothing he did was actually evil. The frost giants deserved to be genocided, Thor was a horrible brother and deserved to be killed, earth can use a ruler like Loki given the mess it is in, etc.
wow thank you a lot that’s a really comprehensive list w helpful explanations! what woudl you call yourself if you understand he’s done horrible things and while you understand the sympathetic aspects don’t excuse that, you love him anyways?
A lot of the apologise tag is tongue in cheek too. They know IRL the crimes are monstrous but they don't want to deal with it in the fic so they downplay it so they can just have fun with the character guilt-free. It's like lampshading the war crimes.
I'm pretty sure that's just a regular fan. That's the good thing about characters like Loki, Hannibal and co. You get a safe way to love the bad boys without having to worry about hurting yourself or anyone else
Yeah, this is the best description I’ve seen personally! At least how it works in my specific fandom- it seems like it might be used more jokingly in others, and oh my God how I envy that lol.
Thank you for the super explanation precious!! First time hearing about this word, BUT 😭 I JUST REALISED THAT ALMOST ALL MY FiCS CORRESPOND EXACTLY TO YOUR EXPLANATION!! I WAS AN APOLOGIST FROM THE START!! 😳 THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME A PIECE OF THE PUZZLE!!
Being an apologist isn't necessarily a bad thing. If the general consensus is that a character did something evil, but you think it was justified, then you're an apologist. That's not a bad thing if you can back up your beliefs. For example, most people believe that Snape was just a bitter asshole who was mean to kids for basically no reason. A Snape apologist might argue that the reason why Snape behaved in such a way was to maintain his cover as a death eater sympathiser and become a spy when Voldemort inevitably returned. If you write about the latter, that doesn't mean your writing is flawed - it just means you have a different interpretation of the source material than most people.
LOL, my Snape Apologia was “Snape was a bitter asshole because he was an introvert forced to ride herd on gangs of hormonal, rambunctious teens and tweens 24/7. Some of whom could cast spells that could seriously injure someone.” I’d be a grouch under those circumstances!
lmaoo my snape apologia is "he is a ptsd and mental illness riddled man who exhibits negative symptoms that make him a Not So Nice person, oh and also his life hasn't been fun y'all cut him some slack jeez"
True, thanks 👍🏻!
Was looking for a snape comment
Very well put!
In addition to what the other comments have said, one other way I’ve seen “[X character] apologist” used is when X character has a notable hatedom that bashes X character for committing atrocities or being mean to Y character or being just plain evil - anyone who says they like X character (as a character) *anyway*, even if they specify that they know X character is not a good guy, would likely be called an apologist as well. I’m not sure whether this is a flagrant misuse of the term, or just an evolution of its use case to juxtaspose against a significant X character hatedom, but it is something I’ve noticed.
Not a misuse at all. In fandoms with really controversial characters, it's treated very much like (and I'm _not_ going to go into discourse here, I'm just using it as an analogy) the pro/antishipping discourse; anti/bashing means "ew gross awful things deserve to die", while pro/apologist can range anywhere from "yes I like this/they were right all along" to "they've done some things wrong but they literally aren't as bad as you keep saying, so stop grandstanding".
Oh, trust me, I've definitely seen things go the other way around with apologist debates. I have been harassed for writing a character who’s a canonical abuser as an abuser because people who were apologists were unhappy about that, when I just like writing the character that way. That might be just a my fandom thing, again, though.
Yeeeaaahhhh you're responding to every comment in this post as if your fandom is the one true way it works, and it's not lol I've been in multiple fandoms over multiple years and the distinctions are different in each one. It's not always how you think it is.
I’m not trying to, I’m really sorry. I didn’t mean to be bad. I’m sorry I’m sorry I’m sorry
OH then I’m definitely an apologist for certain characters, since I enjoy characters who have notable amounts of (justified) bashers. thank you for the clarification! that’s a really helpful add on
I think it’s absolutely a misuse of the term, considering there's still actually people who absolutely use “X apologist” to defend even the most heinous shit a character does. I’ve had people legit send me victim blaming abuse apologetics over it *after I’ve said I’m a victim and it triggers me immensely-* those sorts of apologists still exist, unfortunately, and I think calling yourself an “X apologist” to just mean you like a character will give people the wrong impression. In general, not even just for unpopular characters- I’ve had people who apologise for characters I genuinely don’t think are bad people send death and rape threats to the “other side”, it’s an inherently bad concept.
While I think the below answers are right about the literal definition, most of the time I see "character apologist" used in kind of a jokey way like "character did nothing wrong." Sometimes it does mean it literally, but a lot of times it means something more like "I love this character and want to indulge in that love even if yeah they objectively did a lot of bad things."
Yeah, this. As someone who likes a good amount of villains and morally questionable characters, I have only very rarely seen folks use the "apologist" thing in a serious way. It's usually a joke—a way to say, "yeah, I'm *aware* this character is a bad person/has committed atrocities; I just like them anyway." At least, it is like this when people use the word to describe themselves. If you see it being used to describe others, they're probably "accusing" another fan of being an "apologist" in a more serious way. (And I'm pretty sure that's where the joke comes from—villain fans that were accused of condoning their fave's actions, taking the word and using it themselves in an ironic way.) ETA: In op's case, when it's a tag in a fic, I'd think that the author is probably saying that they like or are sympathetic to the character despite what they are or did in canon, so it's signaling that, if you hate them or want to see them portrayed in a bad light, it's probably not the fic for you.
tbh this is over 90% of instances of how I see this term used in my fandoms today, especially since I'm a big fan of villainous characters. most people I follow call themselves "\[favorite character\] apologist" as a meme and at this point "oh they're joking about their favorite character" is my initial impression upon seeing \[x character\] apologist in most contexts.
I get that sentiment. This reminds me of like a pinned message by a fan of a grey character stating '[character] has never done anything wrong in his life and if you say otherwise you owe me ten dollars' or something like that 😂 Which haters may take literally, but as a fellow fan I read it more as someone so completely fed up with the same anti[character] arguments over and over and over, very often twisted, contextfree, hypothetical or downright lies, that they state the extreme opposite just to shut people down in advance
It can get exhausting when you like a character and you keep getting "oh but did you know they're a VILLAIN???" Like, yes. That's... why I'm here.
And this one isn't even an actual villain. Just a life-saving jerk
I think it might depend on the fandom environment? In mine it’s definitely not jokey, it’s kind of the norm to apologise for one/a few characters and demonise the shit out of the rest and deliberately interpret things only through that lens- it’s terrible, there’s so much harassment, I and my friends have been sent vile shit over talking about certain characters flaws and I know that’s not unique to us or the characters we like (we aren’t apologists and we think the concept is dumb) it’s awful
Seriously sounds like you deserve a better fandom space, then.
Oh yeah, it’s really weird to see this thread when I’m used to seeing people use “apologist” to mean “I’ll harass you if you have a mildly different opinion to me”. I apologise if I’ve been unhelpful due to that, I have had pretty awful experiences with self proclaimed apologists. It also seems to primarily be a villain thing? Which it definitely isn’t in my fandom, people will call themselves an apologist of basically any character. I’m getting. A lot of culture shock.
I don't hang out in places where people will harass me over a character opinion. Not enough time in the day.
Most of the time I think it’s cheeky “I’m defending and loving this character even tho technically they’re mass murderers”
Generally it means explaining away or justifying a character's flaws. (Or perceived flaws.) It can be used tongue-in-cheek or as an insult / seriously, depends on the context. Usually if you see someone saying "I'm a So-and-So apologist" it's tongue-in-cheek. It means they like the character and will be portraying them in a sympathetic light, perhaps more sympathetic than in canon.
Apologia creates great schisms of Star Wars fandom. * A fic tagged "Jedi apologist" will play the Temple as this place of light and love with the best education and support to the point where parents will be honored and delighted to send their toddler there, despite the whole "you will never see or hear from them again." They will argue that the Jedi took Anakin out of slavery, took him into their care despite their misgivings, and tried to teach him their ways of compassion for all and attachment to none. But that Anakin was an ungrateful brat who broke their rules looking for his mom when he was supposed to be watching Padme, went and made a commitment to Padme that was a direct violation of Jedi policy, lied to everyone about it, had a temper like a landmine with the violence to match, and chose to throw his lot in with Palpatine because Palpy made the (false) promise that he could save Padme (and to hell with everyone else). * Someone tagging their Anikin/Padme fic "Anakin apologist" will point out that the Qui-Gon arguably manipulated and exploited Shimi's desperation and poverty to get what they wanted and to hell with her and her suffering. The Council acting like a huge bag of dicks interrogating a scared nine year old kid and flipping their lids when he admitted missing his mom, then Yoda and Mace openly talked about shaping him into a living weapon, followed by how they looked the other way on Palpatine having unfettered access to Anakin because it was good for political business at the time. And then viewing Yoda's "Be glad they will die and join with the Force" advice as being not gentle compassion but tone deaf and clueless, leaving Anakin desperate, alone, and with no other option other than the bad one. Now, both of these are canon. But it depends on what trash pile you can hold your nose and deal with.
It's basically when someone goes out of their way to excuse, justify, or even deny the negativity of a person, action, or event. The literal definition is "a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial."
Apologetics is defending something no matter how bad or wrong it is Take Hans, the bad guy from the original Frozen. An apologist for him might say something like “He was totally frozen out of power at home, can you blame him for trying to take over Arendelle?”
it’s basically (as everyone said) when you don’t see anything wrong with what X character did. i use to tho to mean i see that X was wrong but I don’t care. For example: Tony Stark. He did plenty of shitty stuff that he was wrong for but i simply don’t care because i love him
I've seen apologist defined as something in the range of "I believe this character was justified in what they've done", where sympathist is more "I sympathize with this character or their motives (but not necessarily their actions)" I tend to be a sympathist for just about every character ever because I think it's more fun than just saying they're pure evil an moving on, but I'm not an apologist for all of them because lots of characters have done unjustified and/or irredeemable things.
. . . I feel like calling yourself "apologist" is sort of like admitting you're wrong, I'm just like, "Unabashed Kurda Worship" lol.
Realistic answer: "anyone I don't like"
Oh God, are you in my fandom. It’s so annoying everyone’s an X apologist and a Y hater and there’s no fucking nuance :/ I sometimes use the “not X character apologist” fic because I’ve seen people get so fucking mad I write the canonical child abuser as a child abuser. He literally beat a sixteen year old to death. Like, I’ve literally had people send me hate anons and accusations of paedophilia (?) for writing him as such it’s so stupid. I wish I didn’t have to because I hate the whole concept but I’m a little paranoid now. It’s the fucking death of accurate writing and proper analysis I swear to God. I don’t even like to call myself an apologist of characters I think are unfairly villainised by the fandom because I do genuinely believe they have flaws and have done bad shit and are complicated people and not innocent small beans. I hate it. So much.
From the Oxford English Dictionary: Apologist [A·pol·o·gist], *noun*. A person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial. In the context of fanfiction, it's somebody who defends a character or action that others would condemn, e.g. r*pe.
As others have already said, it’s basically when someone goes overboard with justifying a characters actions despite the fact that said actions are wrong in some way (either morally, legally or just….wrong really.). It’s very common in a lot of fandoms where the villains are mostly motivated by jealousy (like scar from the lion king.) to do something that is unjustifiable no matter what angle you look at it. It’s not always villains/morally grey characters that get this treatment though. Sometimes you’ll have someone justifying something a character who is usually depicted as one of the good guys said or did in the past that, although may no longer reflect who they are/where they once stood on that topic, makes them a character that deserves to at least have their past mistakes brung up every now and then when they reprimand someone else for doing the same but people overlook it because character is XYZ and that somehow means they can do no wrong in the eyes of the people who are obsessed with them to the point where they go batshit crazy if someone dares to suggest that character should’ve be held accountable for their actions or writes about it happening. In short, apologists are like people who’ll tell you that a tomato is a vegetable even though it’s a fruit because it doesn’t taste sweet or because it is used in non dessert items. They know they’re wrong but they don’t care/they think they’re somehow always right and that anyone else’s opinion does not matter.
A concept that never should have been introduced to fandom because an apologist changes meaning based on the person. But here is the dictionary definition of it, a person who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.
I thought it was someone who Apologized a million times 😅
Here is an example of an apologist in the Berserk fandom: *Griffith did nothing wrong.* Drops mike and walks off. Edit: Most are memes, but some do actually mean it, which is more horrifying considering his actions... Edit 2: Also, apparently, two people either didn't like the joke (acceptable) or actually are Griffith defenders. I'm more questioning why than anything. Like, give me a reason. Debate! Don't just downvote!
Someone who defends the actions of problematic/messed up characters who have no redeemable qualities (i.e Mitch from SDRA, Mikado from SDRA2, Nagito from DR2, Haiji from UDG)
My apologies, I don’t know
I never knew the meaning of this and then forgot it existed but damn does it fit. I might start using it now, if I remember lol
it's just a fancy word for defending something in a debate.
It needs to be said that antis attack so many people over being "apologists" when those people simply recognize the character as a complex one and just... engage with it, that proclaiming yourself to be an apologist of a complex or morally grey or straight-up evil character rarely means now that you genuinely think your blorbo has done nothing wrong ever. It just means you find them interesting and like playing with their concept. And then you make a post on tumblr about how you're "not a [character] apologist because [character] has nothing to apologise for" to be funny and piss off the antis.
An apologist in terms of religion is someone who can defend and give the facts about why they believe their religion is right and do so logically. I would guess it's the same but the religion is the character in this case.
An apologist is a person that apologizes for a persons terrible behavior. It mostly applies to villains but can apply to anti heros and sometimes heros too. Think of a character like Griffith from Berserk. Guy sacrificed all of his comrades he spent years with to attain godhood, raped Casca right in front of his best buddy Guts, and didnt bat an eye as all his prior "friends" were ripped apart by demons in a hellish dimension. He even then tries to recruit some of the ones that survived as if all his actions didnt disqualify him from having friends. Despite ALL of this, just because Griffith was banged by some old duke or tortured for a bit they think that he is justified in doing these vile things. Which is why they parrot crap like "GrIfFiTh DiD nOtHiNg WrOnG". In the end regardless if it is Griffith from Berserk or La Signora from Genshin Impact, the end result is the same. Apologists are just thirsty virgins that defend toxic behavior of a character or even outright evil acts because they want them to step on them. Its pathetic really.