> And nothing you've said in this apologist answer has come close to addressing that, you're just dancing around it.
I said the answer was apologist, not the individual.
I myself post apologist answers all the time (justifications for controversial positions), but I don't consider myself an apologist broadly speaking. I also don't presume that the above poster is an "apologist" even if I do consider this singular post "apologist" in nature.
"Apologist" is a word for a person. Perhaps you were looking for "apologetic"? (Though given that an apologist is someone who practices apologetics, it still seems like a hazy distinction.)
In English, nouns can be used as adjectives. e.g. School bus, ticket office, computer mouse, apologist answer.
"Apologetic" has connotations of regret. I think this confusion might lead some people to take "apologist" as a derogatory or inflammatory word, when it shouldn't be.
When you use a noun referring to a person to modify another noun, it will generally be taken to mean "belonging or related to such a person." For example, "school teacher salaries" means salaries belonging to school teachers. Similarly, the phrase "apologist comment" naturally reads as "a comment belonging to an apologist."
And I don't think it's the connotations of regret that lend the term "apologist" its negative connotations. The negative connotation of that word is the implication that you are bound and determined to defend some position and will not be moved — stemming from its roots of defending literal dogma. People take it to mean a sort of closed-minded, blind tribalism.
At any rate, if you don't trust your audience to read "apologetic" in the proper sense, I certainly wouldn't hold out much hope for a neutral reading of "apologist."
> And nothing you've said in this apologist answer has come close to addressing that, you're just dancing around it.
I said the answer was apologist, not the individual.
I myself post apologist answers all the time (justifications for controversial positions), but I don't consider myself an apologist broadly speaking. I also don't presume that the above poster is an "apologist" even if I do consider this singular post "apologist" in nature.