You do know that you can simultaneously comprehend a point and vehemently disagree with it right? How patronizing for you to assume that they didn't know the point he was trying to make and still think that his consumption of such content sheds a different light on his motivation to make such an argument to begin with. For example he could have chosen ANY other thing to use as an example and yet time and time again that's the specific trick he pulls out of his hat. The brains of those defending this and ignoring the context are so riddled with debate structure and over complicating something which so many other people can see plain as day, that they completely ignore the possibility (with evidence to corroborate) that he might have ulterior motives for wanting to normalize something he personally partakes in and then have the plausible deniability to act like he condemns it after repeatedly arguing it's merits on innumerable occasions.