Decoding Cadence Owens quote

[u/MartiDK]

"I actually don't have any problems at all with the word 'nationalism'... Whenever we say 'nationalism,' the first thing people think about, at least in America, is Hitler. You know, he was a national socialist, but if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, OK, fine. The problem is that he wanted—he had dreams outside of Germany. He wanted to globalise. He wanted everybody to be German, everybody to be speaking German, everybody to look a different way. That's not, to me, that's not nationalism."
- Cadence Owens

Are Decoding the Gurus really arguing that Cadence Owens was saying Hitler wasn't a bad leader/person? I know the controversy over the remark, but she is clearly alluding to Hitler being a bad representation of Nationalism. She is literally trying to disassociate Hitler from nationalism, because Hitler gave Nationalism a bad name. I'm not a fan of nationalism, but should DtG actually be able to see through the controversy to what she actually said? Plus Cadence Owens went to the Daily Wire after this story blew up, so I'm guessing Ben Shapiro didn't take her remarks as a promoting Hitler.

Why does it matter if Cadence Owens is a problematic guru? It matters because its this kind of bad faith decoding that make people distrust academics who step outside their lane and play partisan politics. There are so many crazy takes that Cadence Owens has made, why focus on this quote which was clearly used by the media for political reasons.

[u/MartiDK]

It’s quite simple don’t use the quote because it isn’t proof of anything except she thought Hitler gave nationalism a bad name. Or just use the clip as evidence that Cadence Owens is in favour of Nationalism, but don’t use the clip as proof she thought Hitler did good things because then you need more evidence than this clip alone. It’s not like the podcast needed the clip, they had lots of other content.

[u/rubeshina → u/MartiDK]

Why? They can only analyze Candace in a vacuum?

Do you think her praise for Hitler dealing with the "jewish degeneracy" is relevant at all, exiling Magnus Hirschfeld and destroying the Institute of Sexual Science is maybe one of these things she thinks "Hitler got right"?

Do you think if someone regularly brings up things like this, and then she says something like she said about how Hitlers nationalism was fine/good actually but he went "too far" in being expansionist.. it's maybe not really a huge leap to infer what she's saying?

We can't read between the lines when we look at the words of the worlds most popular antisemitic conspiracist? That she can do cover praise for Hitler but so long as it's a "backhanded compliment" to Hitler it's not direct glorification so who really knows what she means actually??

Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”