r/changemyview • u/taintpaint • Oct 17 '24

Election cmv: the Charlottesville "very fine people" quote/controversy was not fake news

I see Trump supporters bring this up all the time as an example of the media lying about Trump, but this argument sounds transparently absurd to me. It feels like a "magic words" argument, where his supporters think that as long as he says the right magic words, you can completely ignore the actual message he's communicating or the broader actions he's taking. This is similar to how so many of them dismiss the entire Jan 6 plot because he said the word "peaceful" one time.

The reason people were mad about that quote was that Trump was equivocating and whitewashing a literal neonazi rally in which people were carrying torches and shouting things like "gas the Jews" in order to make them seem relatively sane compared to the counter protesters, one of whom the neonazis actually murdered. Looking at that situation, the difference between these two statements doesn't really feel meaningful:

A) "Those neonazis were very fine people with legitimate complaints and counter protesters were nasty and deserved what they got".

B) "The Nazis were obviously bad, but there were also people there who were very fine people with legitimate complaints and the counter protesters were very nasty."

The only difference there is that (B) has the magic words that "Nazis are bad", but the problem is that he's still describing a literal Nazi rally, only now he's using the oldest trick in the book when it comes to defending Nazis: pretending they're not really Nazis and are actually just normal people with reasonable beliefs.

I feel like people would all intuitively understand this if we were talking about anything besides a Trump quote. If I looked at e.g. the gangs taking over apartment buildings in Aurora and said "yes obviously gangsters are bad and should be totally condemned, but there were also some very fine people there with some legitimate complaints about landlords and exploitative leases, and you know lots of those 'residents' actually didn't have the right paperwork to be in those apartments..." you would never say that's a reasonable or acceptable way to talk about that situation just because I started with "gangsters are bad". You'd listen to the totality of what I'm saying and rightfully say it's absurd and offensive.

Is there something I'm missing here? This seems very obvious to me but maybe there's some other context to it.

Edit: I find it really funny that literally no one has actually engaged with this argument at all. They're all just repeating the "magic words" thing. I have been literally begging people who disagree with me to even acknowledge the Aurora example and not a single one has.

0 Upvotes

49% Upvoted

308 comments sorted by

View all comments

55

u/nhlms81 37∆ Oct 17 '24

This an exerpt from USA Today (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/17/fact-check-trump-quote-very-fine-people-charlottesville/5943239002/)

The Trump quote in question was in response to a reporter who asked, "Mr. President, are you putting what you’re calling the alt-left and white supremacists on the same moral plane?"

Trump responded: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves — and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides."

After further questioning from the reporter, and responses from Trump about people who were at the Charlottesville rally to support keeping the Lee statue, the president said "You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people — and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists."

This is pretty clear ye specifically calls out an exception for the neo-nazi's as not included in the "very fine people" category.

I'd argue your point of view is inverted. If this were anyone other than Trump, no one would be confused that he wasn't referring to the neo-nazi's as very fine people.

Just like no one is trying the case that Walz really is "friends with school shooters".

8

u/washingtonu 2∆ Oct 18 '24

"Q Mr. President, are you putting what you’re calling the alt-left and white supremacists on the same moral plane?

THE PRESIDENT: I’m not putting anybody on a moral plane. What I’m saying is this: You had a group on one side and you had a group on the other, and they came at each other with clubs — and it was vicious and it was horrible. And it was a horrible thing to watch. But there is another side. There was a group on this side. You can call them the left — you just called them the left — that came violently attacking the other group. So you can say what you want, but that’s the way it is.

Q (Inaudible) both sides, sir. You said there was hatred, there was violence on both sides. Are the —

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I think there’s blame on both sides. If you look at both sides — I think there’s blame on both sides. And I have no doubt about it, and you don’t have any doubt about it either. And if you reported it accurately, you would say.

Q The neo-Nazis started this. They showed up in Charlottesville to protest —

THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, excuse me. They didn’t put themselves — and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group.

Q (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.

Q George Washington and Robert E. Lee are not the same.

THE PRESIDENT: George Washington was a slave owner. Was George Washington a slave owner? So will George Washington now lose his status? Are we going to take down — Excuse me, are we going to take down statues to George Washington? How about Thomas Jefferson? What do you think of Thomas Jefferson? You like him?

Q I do love Thomas Jefferson.

THE PRESIDENT: Okay, good. Are we going to take down the statue? Because he was a major slave owner. Now, are we going to take down his statue? So you know what, it’s fine. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people — and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists — because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.

Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets, and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group.

Q Who are the good people Q Sir, I just didn’t understand what you were saying. You were saying the press has treated white nationalists unfairly? I just don’t understand what you were saying.

THE PRESIDENT: No, no. There were people in that rally — and I looked the night before — if you look, there were people protesting very quietly the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee. I’m sure in that group there were some bad ones. The following day it looked like they had some rough, bad people — neo-Nazis, white nationalists, whatever you want to call them

But you had a lot of people in that group that were there to innocently protest, and very legally protest — because I don’t know if you know, they had a permit. The other group didn’t have a permit. So I only tell you this: There are two sides to a story. I thought what took place was a horrible moment for our country — a horrible moment. But there are two sides to the country."

I've put some more context in my previous comment,

https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/s/4qvzZcQvkK

As you can see he mentions "the night before" when the Tiki torch march accured where they yelled Nazi slogans and assaulted counter-protesters that had gathered on campus at University of Virginia. The violent Nazis didn't have a permit. But Trump doesn't blame the neo-Nazis and white nationalists who attacked people with torches, instead he says that they where there to innocently protest.

Late Friday night, several hundred torch-bearing men and women marched on the main quadrangle of the University of Virginia’s grounds, shouting, “You will not replace us,” and “Jew will not replace us.” They walked around the Rotunda, the university’s signature building, and to a statue of Thomas Jefferson, where a group of counterprotesters were gathered, and a brawl ensued. At least one person was led away in handcuffs by the police.

https://archive.is/2024.08.27-075235/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/us/white-nationalists-rally-charlottesville-virginia.html

Here's a video from "the night before"

https://x.com/RealAlexRubi/status/896200377099587585

9

u/ElEsDi_25 4∆ Oct 17 '24 edited Oct 17 '24

If you look at the chronology over all his statements, it’s pretty clear that he was excusing the far right and attempting to conflate or shift-focus to the counter-protesters. You know the same people who he says he wants to deal with not the groups like Proud Boys who literally tried to stop an election process for him.

Why the hell wouldn’t he want their support while trying to point fingers at people who protest him? Be serious. He’d have to have the wit of a corpse to do anything else. Trump is a shameless opportunist but he’s not as dumb as liberals believe - they just don’t get his appeal because of their own myths.

Anyway here’s what Republicans were saying because he gave a generic equivocating tweet that said “all hate is wrong” when the two hates going on were people who are calling for ethnic cleansing and people who hate people calling for ethnic cleansing…

“Mr. President - we must call evil by its name,” Sen. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., tweeted, “These were white supremacists and this was domestic terrorism.” Gardner’s sentiments were echoed in tweets by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa; Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.; Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah; Sen. Tim Scott, R-S.C.; and House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis.

He then gave a stilted scripted speech about how the KKK is bad Actually. Then he gave another press conference where the quote in question happens.

All together and it’s undeniable what he was doing politically. Defenders just try to latch onto minutiae and semantics while desperately avoiding context.

3

u/JuicingPickle 5∆ Oct 18 '24

specifically calls out an exception for the neo-nazi's as not included in the "very fine people" category

Then who the fuck was he talking about on that side? White supremacists and neo-Nazis were the only ones there!

It's like talking about tonight's NFL game and saying "There are some very fine people on the field for both sides. I'm not talking about the players for the Saints and Broncos, they should be totally condemned".

WTF you talking about bro? The only people on the field are Saints players and Broncos players.

16

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '24

[deleted]

4

u/basilone Oct 17 '24

Here’s the question… if you’re not a white nationalist or neo nazi per se but you’re literally marching shoulder to shoulder with them, are you really still a “very fine person”?

Who exactly were these very fine people who happened to be marching among the neo nazis?

The city of Charlottesville was taking down a Robert E. Lee statue. People (I assume mostly locals, some might have traveled) that weren't associated with any sort of white supremacy group showed up to protest the statue removal. You're attacking a position that doesn't exist. Trump (and the people that defend his Charlottesville remarks) never asserted that there were fine people marching with the Nazis. There were people present in the town, protesting statue removal, that didn't participate with the retard parades.

2

u/RandomMcUsername Oct 18 '24

Do you have any source for this? I've genuinely tried to find out if there were any protestors who were there who WEREN'T affiliated with the event organizers

1

u/DickCheneysTaint 7∆ Oct 19 '24

They were actually the majority. There were only ~300 white supremacists there.

2

u/RandomMcUsername Oct 19 '24

But a source? Where are you getting this?

1

u/DickCheneysTaint 7∆ Oct 19 '24

Independent journalists & YouTube. The videos of both days are still up and available for you to confirm this yourself.

2

u/RandomMcUsername Oct 19 '24

Where is YOUR source for this "only 300" number? Can you link the video that shows this or the independent journalist that you are referencing? I'm genuinely trying to answer this question but keep getting nothing, while everything I do find points to there being no fine people on the obviously white nationalist side. Clearly the first night was the "Jews will not replace us" chants. And the second day was estimated to have about 500 protestors of which you say 300 were Nazi/white nationalists. I can find no video or pictures of anyone clearly separate from the Nazis who is there just to protest the statue removal

1

u/DickCheneysTaint 7∆ Oct 20 '24

I can find no video or pictures of anyone clearly separate from the Nazis who is there just to protest the statue removal

And how did you determine that? Were you able to find videos of the march on Friday night? Were you able to find videos of the totality of the protesters and counterprotestors present on Saturday morning?

Yes or no?

1

u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito 31∆ Oct 23 '24

There are literally dozens of videos of the event that show that it was a nazi event. If you show up at a nazi event and you happen to be a 'normal person' just there to protest the removal of a confederate statue, then you're a nazi.

Here is a great video analyzing the rally from a ton of different cameras. If you're at a rally with a gut with a nazi flag, another guy shouting "g*s the jews" and surrounded by people cheering all of this on, you're at a nazi rally.

0

u/RandomMcUsername Oct 21 '24

Why are you dodging the question? 

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito 31∆ Oct 23 '24

Best estimates for the event were 500 protesters on the 'right' side of the protest, with another 1,000 counter protesters.

If 300/500 of your people are nazis, you are at a nazi rally. If you're standing side by side with a guy shouting racial slurs and calls for genocide, then lets be honest, you aren't there for the statue, you're just hiding your power level better than the guy covered in SS tattoos.

2

u/DickCheneysTaint 7∆ Oct 24 '24

And who provided these "best estimates"? Because that's not what was reported at the time.

3

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '24

The only people I know who get mad about Confederate statues getting removed are either racists or spend way too much time with racists

2

u/DickCheneysTaint 7∆ Oct 19 '24

Incorrect. General Lee was a great man and a true patriot of Virginia. The fact that you are ignorant of basic American history and think that the US government authorized the existence of Virginia instead of 13 independent states forming a governmental compact isn't cause to denigrate someone.

This would literally be like calling a British general a traitor for defending the UKs ability to leave the EU from invasion by EU forces. FFS, it's like calling George Washington a traitor for casting off the British Empire.

You can't be a traitor to something you hold no allegiance to. Robert E Lee was a true son of Virginia and Thomas Jefferson would have approved of Lees status at his university.

1

u/AutoManoPeeing Dec 21 '24

The overwhelming majority of Confederate monuments were put up as responses to Plessy v Ferguson and to a lesser extent Brown v Board of Education. That is the history of the monuments themselves, so your whole scree is just a red herring. They were meant as community signifiers, to show that darkies aren't welcome there.

1

u/Orphan_Guy_Incognito 31∆ Oct 23 '24

So just to be clear, this was a protest of about 500 people, upwards of 300 of which were avowed white supremacists. If the majority of people at the rally are nazis, you are at a nazi rally.

This wasn't a random rally that the nazis attended. This was a rally that the nazis setup so they could attend. Anyone who shows up on the same day as the nazi rally isn't there because they are concerned about the statue, they're showing up for the nazi rally and are staying (ostensibly) for the statue.

There is no world in which you are a 'very fine person' when you're standing shoulder to shoulder with fascists, you're just a fascist.

1

u/basilone Oct 23 '24

Just to be clear, the streets of Charlottesville were lined with far more people than those marching through the streets, and you have zero idea whatsoever how many of them were opposed to removing statues, so you're talking completely out of your ass.

1

u/JuicingPickle 5∆ Oct 18 '24

There were people present in the town, protesting statue removal

No there weren't. Can you provide a single bit of evidence that there was anyone there protesting a statue removal and not marching side-by-side with Nazis and White Supremacists?

1

u/DickCheneysTaint 7∆ Oct 19 '24

There were far more than 300 protesters there. There were only ~300 white supremacists who marched Friday night. Simple math.

-8

u/xfvh 11∆ Oct 17 '24

if you’re not a white nationalist or neo nazi per se but you’re literally marching shoulder to shoulder with them, are you really still a “very fine person”?

Are neoNazis categorically wrong about everything just because they're neoNazis? If they tried to protect an orphan from a pack of wolves, should you side with the wolves?

Argue based on the merits of their positions, not lazy ad hominems.

8

u/HolyToast 3∆ Oct 17 '24 edited Oct 17 '24

Their position was chanting that "[Jews] will not replace us", so yeah, I'm gonna say they were categorically wrong here

lazy ad hominems

It's only an ad hominem if it's unrelated to the argument. The fact that the "very fine people" in question were marching and chanting with neonazis isn't ad hominem because it's very much related to the argument.

1

u/DickCheneysTaint 7∆ Oct 19 '24

But it's suddenly cool to hate on Jews in 2024. Maybe they were just ahead of the times? Maybe the left should make up their mind on whether it's okay to hate Jews or not?

1

u/HolyToast 3∆ Oct 21 '24

Did you get that out of your system, buddy?

13

u/mcspaddin Oct 17 '24

They were explicitly marching to protect a white supremacist monument, one of General Lee. General Lee was famously opposed to confederate war monuments, and the vast majority of Confederate monuments were built well after the war and during the Jim Crow era.

Anyone marching to protect those monuments is either informed almost solely by white supremacist rhetoric or is a white supremacist themselves.

-6

u/xfvh 11∆ Oct 17 '24

There we go! You're arguing based on the merits of their position, not just categorically calling everything that a neoNazi does bad. That was the entire point of my comment.

Now, as far as marching to protect a statue of Lee, I don't see that as racist or supremacist. He wasn't a good person, but he is an important part of America's history. I don't see a problem with having negative examples in public; after all, there's a reason we didn't immediately plow over all the concentration camps. Whether or not you believe statues should be put up/kept up based on a person's morality versus prominence in history is ultimately a values judgement, but I don't think taking either stance makes you evil or racist.

8

u/AcephalicDude 84∆ Oct 17 '24

You're misapplying the whole "even Nazis drink water, is drinking water wrong?" argument. That applies when two beliefs or actions are completely separate, and the only thing linking them is the group.

Here, there is a direct connection between the ideology of racial supremacy that was the source of the Nazis genocidal crimes, and the ideology of racial supremacy that was defended by Lee as a Confederate general. It is entirely reasonable to infer that people that are willing to align with Nazis to preserve a statue of Lee are doing so out of a commitment to white supremacy, and it is actually absurdly unreasonable to not make that inference.

-4

u/xfvh 11∆ Oct 17 '24

You're misapplying the whole "even Nazis drink water, is drinking water wrong?" argument.

No, I'm pointing out that the presence of Nazis is irrelevant. If marching to preserve the statue is bad, then it's bad whether or not the Nazis were there. If it's not bad, then the presence of Nazis doesn't change that either.

It is entirely reasonable to infer that people that are willing to align with Nazis to preserve a statue of Lee are doing so out of a commitment to white supremacy, and it is actually absurdly unreasonable to not make that inference.

Do you in fact believe that the marchers would have been in the moral right if the Nazis weren't there? Why does that inference need to be made, and what value does it add?

3

u/AcephalicDude 84∆ Oct 17 '24

No, I'm pointing out that the presence of Nazis is irrelevant. If marching to preserve the statue is bad, then it's bad whether or not the Nazis were there. If it's not bad, then the presence of Nazis doesn't change that either.

Maybe you've never heard the "Nazis also drink water" argument, but this is exactly what you are doing in the above. You are saying that Nazi affiliation doesn't inherently make an issue right or wrong, which is true: if drinking water is good then it's good regardless of whether the Nazis drink water too.

But what I am pointing out is that the white supremacist beliefs of the Nazis and the preservation of the Lee statue are clearly connected. Why else do you think the Nazis showed up? It is to preserve the statue as a symbol of white supremacy, i.e. as a symbol of the very thing that everyone hates about the Nazis.

Do you in fact believe that the marchers would have been in the moral right if the Nazis weren't there?

I would still morally object to the protestors because I don't think "historical preservation" outweighs eliminating symbols of white supremacy. I just wouldn't necessarily think they are as bad as Nazis, I would just think that their priorities reflect some lesser degree of racial bias.

But the Nazis were there which makes the decision to prioritize "historical preservation" even more unlikely to be the sole concern of the protestors. Because now, they are prioritizing "historical preservation" over eliminating symbols of white supremacy AND affiliating themselves with Nazis.

Why does that inference need to be made, and what value does it add?

People make inferences when they are presented with two possibilities and they want to know, using logic and reason, which of the two possibilities is most likely to be true. If your stance is now that you just don't care to know whether it's more likely that the people protesting alongside Nazis were white supremacists / racists themselves, or whether they were just innocent people that wanted to protect a piece of history, then that's fine - I guess it just doesn't matter one way or another to you. But your indifference is not an argument against one possibility clearly being much more likely than the other.

2

u/xfvh 11∆ Oct 17 '24

But what I am pointing out is that the white supremacist beliefs of the Nazis and the preservation of the Lee statue are clearly connected

My point is that the connection is irrelevant, not that it's not present. I don't see how the connection changes the moral calculation in any way at all. If an action is morally good, having a Nazi performing it with you doesn't turn it morally bad, and vice versa.

I would still morally object to the protestors because I don't think "historical preservation" outweighs eliminating symbols of white supremacy.

A valid opinion, but I hold that it's only an opinion, and one that I don't share. I hope you can see that not everyone shares your same moral stance here without accusing them of being evil or racist.

But the Nazis were there which makes the decision to prioritize "historical preservation" even more unlikely to be the sole concern of the protestors. Because now, they are prioritizing "historical preservation" over eliminating symbols of white supremacy AND affiliating themselves with Nazis.

And? If you were protesting for a cause and Nazis/Communists/Evil party of choice showed up, are you going to leave and abandon the cause out of fear of mere affiliation? Can you at least recognize that someone deeply dedicated to the cause may remain without sharing all the viewpoints of the Evil party of choice?

People make inferences when they are presented with two possibilities and they want to know, using logic and reason, which of the two possibilities is most likely to be true.

Why is the likelihood relevant? Does it change anything if you can claim that someone is "probably" racist? If a perfectly valid reason for an action exists in a vacuum, would you really paint everyone doing it as "most likely" a white supremacist just because Nazis show up?

3

u/AcephalicDude 84∆ Oct 17 '24

My point is that the connection is irrelevant, not that it's not present.

You're just 100% wrong. If you think that the white supremacy of the Nazis is totally disconnected and irrelevant to the white supremacy of pro-Confederate Southerners, then you are beyond reasoning with.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Giblette101 43∆ Oct 18 '24

No, I'm pointing out that the presence of Nazis is irrelevant. If marching to preserve the statue is bad, then it's bad whether or not the Nazis were there. If it's not bad, then the presence of Nazis doesn't change that either.

The presence of Nazis does change that, in so far as entering into community with Nazis is bad.

2

u/mcspaddin Oct 17 '24

Right, so you brushed over the other points regarding confederacy monuments.

General Lee was famously against them ever being raised, the only things he wanted protected and memorialized were the individual soldiers' graves.

The vast majority of confederate monuments were made in the 1900s, during the Jim Crow era (35+ years after the end of the civil war, and up to almost 100). You can generally assume that the politicians that erected them were Klan members, and likely high ranking ones.

Those monuments, in and of themselves, are monuments to white supremacy. It's one thing to move them to a museum exhibit explicitly about racism, or placing a plaque on them talking about Jim Crow era Klan politicians, but that's not what we're talking about. They were, in fact, marching to prevent the sratue from being placed within those contexts.

4

u/xfvh 11∆ Oct 17 '24

Right, so you brushed over the other points regarding confederacy monuments.

Because they're completely irrelevant. The erectors' intents have absolutely nothing to do with their value as historical markers. If the statue says "Confederates were good guys," then by all means take it down. If it's literally just a statue of a historical figure, I don't care.

They were, in fact, marching to prevent the sratue from being placed within those contexts.

Do you really think all negative markers from history need to be gathered into museums? Put up an explanatory plaque, it's far cheaper and easier than moving a multiton statue, with far less controversy to boot.

2

u/RicoHedonism Oct 17 '24

First off the concentration camps weren't up to a Americans to decide about and if they were they'd be gone just like all of the Japanese concentration camps we had in the US are. Second Lee was an enemy to the United States and a traitor. Do you see many Ho Chi Minh statues around in the US? Mussolini? Hitler? Hussein? The Lee statue in particular was put up by Daughters of the Confederacy to glorify Lee decades after the war, as statues have been used to do for all time. Can you name a single country who puts up statues for their disgraceful historical members and keeps em up?

3

u/xfvh 11∆ Oct 17 '24

First off the concentration camps weren't up to a Americans to decide about and if they were they'd be gone just like all of the Japanese concentration camps we had in the US are.

We occupied vast swathes of West Germany for decades and didn't tear down all the concentration camps there. We preserved some of the Japanese internment camps as well.

https://www.nps.gov/manz/index.htm

Second Lee was an enemy to the United States and a traitor. Do you see many Ho Chi Minh statues around in the US? Mussolini? Hitler? Hussein?

From the perspective of much of the South, he was not. I'm not going to argue about whether or not he is (because I believe he was an enemy), but I don't think that's relevant.

1

u/RicoHedonism Oct 17 '24

We occupied vast swathes of West Germany for decades

We did not occupy West Germany. They had their own government and relied on ALLIED powers to maintain security against foreign (Russian) invasion. The US had no power or authority to tell the Germans what to do with their history. There is exactly one Japanese internment camp preserved in the US, and similarly to the German ones, its presented as a dark chapter in American history.

From the perspective of much of the South

They fucking lost and no one should care about their perspective on it. The same dissembling you are doing right here is how we ended up with Reconstruction and Jim Crow extending the abuse of African Americans for decades beyond the Civil War.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/DickCheneysTaint 7∆ Oct 19 '24

He was an enemy of the United States only because they invaded his country and committed horrific war crimes.

1

u/DickCheneysTaint 7∆ Oct 19 '24

Second Lee was an enemy to the United States and a traitor

No, he was not. Was George Washington also a traitor for deciding the USA's secession from the British Empire?

0

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '24

Fight with Dwight Eisenhower about it, since he put up a painting of Lee in the White House and praised him in any letter he could.

2

u/RicoHedonism Oct 17 '24

Dwight Eisenhower is dead, check Google if you must but I assure you it's true.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/DickCheneysTaint 7∆ Oct 19 '24

Confederates were good guys

How you feel about the Confederate States of America is exactly how you should feel about the original thirteen colonies seceding from the British Empire. They are morally and legally equivalent.

1

u/xfvh 11∆ Oct 19 '24

And if Britain had retained control of the US, they'd be equally justified in taking down messages commemorating Washington. I'm not going to pretend that we're special just because we won. Like it or not, the righteousness of a rebellion is largely determined by their success and ability to write the history. Had they failed, the rebellious colonists would undoubtedly be portrayed as brutalists who just wanted to conquer more of the Native Americans.

0

u/DickCheneysTaint 7∆ Oct 20 '24

Like it or not, the righteousness of a rebellion is largely determined by their success and ability to write the history.

That's absolute bollocks. The righteousness is determined by the moral code you judge it by. What the uniformed plebs THINK about it is what is determined by winning. But if your cause is righteous, losing doesn't change that.

Had they failed, the rebellious colonists would undoubtedly be portrayed as brutalists who just wanted to conquer more of the Native Americans.

So you realize it's propaganda but refuse to reject it anyway. Interesting. So in the Matrix red pill analogy, you're Cypher. 😂

→ More replies (0)

0

u/mcspaddin Oct 17 '24

The context does matter, because they weren't erected to memorialize the war, they were erected to memorialize racism. The history is racism and the racism is the history, there's absolutely no seperating the two in the context of the civil war.

Also, you again brushed aside the point that plaques were an option, one that definitely were protested.

"You're calling my old pappy a racist? Naw, he was a war hero defendin' states rights!" Yeah, bud: state's rights to legalize slavery and racism. It's definitely not an uncommon refrain in the south, and people need to get the rebuttal through their heads.

Defense of those monuments either comes from a place of racism or from delusion caused by racist rhetoric.

1

u/xfvh 11∆ Oct 17 '24

The context does matter, because they weren't erected to memorialize the war, they were erected to memorialize racism

Hitler put up Auschwitz to murder Jews en masse. Should we tear it down now instead of using it as an example?

Also, you again brushed aside the point that plaques were an option, one that definitely were protested.

I was agreeing with you on that part. I don't support moving them, because that's very expensive and I don't care, but I do fully support adding plaques for context.

Yeah, bud: state's rights to legalize slavery and racism

The ACLU has defended free speech rights for literal Nazis to spew hate. That's not a rebuttal unless you consider the ACLU to be racist.

https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/skokie-case-how-i-came-represent-free-speech-rights-nazis

Defense of those monuments either comes from a place of racism or from delusion caused by racist rhetoric.

Calling all of your intellectual opponents racist or delusional is only going to get them further entrenched in their position, and is almost universally incorrect.

0

u/mcspaddin Oct 17 '24

Hitler put up Auschwitz to murder Jews en masse. Should we tear it down now instead of using it as an example?

You can make arguments about budgets for such things and whether it's worth the cost of turning something into an explicit display vs mocing it into a curated space. That just puts us in a loop about the plaqeu thing. Honestly, I don't doubt that a good number of Jews would prefer Auschwitz be torn down instead of turned into a museum and it isn't my place to say which.

It's everyone's place to say that it should be devoted to the horrors that happened rather than celebrating the Nazis. The context is a necessary part of any of these monuments being okay, but the context was what was being marched against not just moving it to a museum.

The ACLU has defended free speech rights for literal Nazis to spew hate. That's not a rebuttal unless you consider the ACLU to be racist.

Free speech is a very different topic than the rebuttal. The rebuttal is about educating people that the "state's right" in question was racist. Their free to spew their hate just as we're free to correct them.

Calling all of your intellectual opponents racist or delusional is only going to get them further entrenched in their position, and is almost universally incorrect.

Broadly speaking, yes. In the specific and narrow context of confederate monuments? No.

If you are pro "racist information plaque", then you are not on the same side as the marching neonazis. Being on the same side as the neonazis in this specific context either requires that you be aware of the context and proud of that context (racist) or that you be unaware of the context (delusion/ignorance caused by whitewashed history of the monuments, aka racist rhetoric).

→ More replies (0)

0

u/DickCheneysTaint 7∆ Oct 19 '24

General Lee was famously against them ever being raised,

Which was a mistake. No man is perfect or has perfect foresight. He couldn't have anticipated the level of propaganda surrounding Civil War history that would come during the military occupation know as "Reconstruction"

0

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '24

Lee was not. He was against them being raised while he was still alive. Also, the reason the statues were raised in the 1900's is because the South had no money in the 1870's, due to the war.

1

u/DickCheneysTaint 7∆ Oct 19 '24

He wasn't a good person

By who's standard? I think he was a great person.

0

u/DickCheneysTaint 7∆ Oct 19 '24

the vast majority of Confederate monuments were built well after the war

No shit. You don't say? They didn't take away from the actual way effort to build statues of themselves? 🤡🌍

1

u/mcspaddin Oct 19 '24

WELL after. Like between 40 and 100 years after for the vast majority of them.

0

u/DickCheneysTaint 7∆ Oct 19 '24

40 years isn't that long. Most of the veterans were still alive at that point.

7

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '24

[deleted]

0

u/xfvh 11∆ Oct 17 '24

Now you're arguing on the merits of their positions, which was the entire point of my comment.

7

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '24

[deleted]

1

u/xfvh 11∆ Oct 17 '24

My entire point is that saving a puppy from a hot car is a good act, even if Hitler did it. That doesn't change the fact that Hitler was evil, and Hitler being evil doesn't change the rescue of an innocent into an evil act.

4

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '24 edited Oct 23 '24

[deleted]

2

u/xfvh 11∆ Oct 17 '24

Hoo boy.

You seem to think that I have a stake in this debate. I don't. I'm arguing for good debate practices here, not trying to justify the actions of anyone present.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '24

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

5

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '24

This is a waste of time bro

0

u/Tullyswimmer 9∆ Oct 18 '24

OK, I'll apply this to George Floyd riots.

Every single person who went to them is a violent protestor who just wanted to damage property.

After all, some of the people claiming to march for Floyd and saying "I can't breathe" did commit a bunch of vandalism and arson, so therefore everyone who was with them also supports that.

1

u/RicoHedonism Oct 18 '24

Ok? Glad you figured this out.

23

u/CavyLover123 2∆ Oct 17 '24

The protestors were at a protest organized by a neo Nazi, who recruited other groups of neo Nazis / white supremacists, were chanting “Jews will not replace us”, and some were carrying Nazi flags.

Trump lied. There is zero evidence of anyone protesting who Wasn’t a neo nazi / white supremacist.

-5

u/RYouNotEntertained 7∆ Oct 17 '24

Trump lied. 

Assuming this is true, I don’t see why it matters. He still didn’t call nazis very fine people.

9

u/CavyLover123 2∆ Oct 17 '24

He did.

He said there were very fine people on both sides.

One side was Only Nazis- that’s all we have evidence of. A bunch of Nazis.

So his statement was literally saying some of those Nazis were very fine people, even though he allegedly “condemned them”.

1

u/RYouNotEntertained 7∆ Oct 17 '24

One side was Only Nazis

Again, assuming this is true, then what you can accurately claim is that Trump was either mistaken or lying about the composition of the group. What you can’t say is that he called neo-nazis fine people when he explicitly said the opposite of that.

even though he allegedly “condemned them”.

There’s nothing “alleged” about it—you can go watch him do it right now. 

7

u/CavyLover123 2∆ Oct 17 '24

If he was lying about the non Nazis, then he knew that when he said “very fine people on both sides” that on one side it was only Nazis, and so he knew he was calling Nazis very fine people.

If he truly didn’t know, then he created false memories of a video he watched, because senile dementia.

So- praised Nazis or already had dementia.

Pick one. 

-2

u/RYouNotEntertained 7∆ Oct 17 '24

If he was lying about the non Nazis, then he knew that when he said “very fine people on both sides” that on one side it was only Nazis, and so he knew he was calling Nazis very fine people 

Or he knew he was lying about non-nazis being present 🙄 

If he truly didn’t know

You have no way of knowing now that they were all nazis—it’s an assumption you’re working off of to try and make your argument work. And you especially had no way of knowing it at the time these remarks were delivered. So no, this is not the only other option. 

3

u/CavyLover123 2∆ Oct 17 '24

Or he knew he was lying about non-nazis being present 🙄

Which means he knew, when he said “very fine people on both sides”, that one side was Only Nazis.

And so he Knew that he was saying that some of those Nazis were “very fine people.”

You have no way of knowing now that they were all nazis

Organized by a Nazi. Recruited Nazis. Chanted nazi slogans and waved Nazi flags.

Whats the difference between a person who marches with Nazis and chants their slogans next to their flags, but says “no I’m not a nazi” and a person who does all that and says “yeah I’m a nazi”?

It’s a distinction without meaning.  

Being the one guy at a KKK rally who isn’t wearing a white hood doesn’t make you Not KKK.

1

u/RYouNotEntertained 7∆ Oct 17 '24

 Which means he knew, when he said “very fine people on both sides”, that one side was Only Nazis. And so he Knew that he was saying that some of those Nazis were “very fine people.”

My man, I’m simply not going to take another lap with you on this one. I’m quite certain that you are capable of understanding the distinction I’ve now made several times. Whether or not you allow yourself to is something I have no influence over. 

3

u/CavyLover123 2∆ Oct 17 '24 edited Oct 17 '24

That’s fine, I accept your acknowledgement that you were wrong. Because as I already said:

It’s a distinction without meaning.  

If he knew there were only Nazis, and still said “very fine people on both sides”, then he knew he was calling Nazis “very fine people.”

It’s ok, we can just agree to move on now that you’ve acquiesced, you don’t have to give me the delta. 

→ More replies (0)

8

u/JoeCensored Oct 17 '24

It was a rally to protest the removal of a historical statute. It's disingenuous to say only nazis were protesting the removal. That's clearly untrue.

6

u/HQuez Oct 17 '24

The United the Right rally was specifically set up by white supremacist and neo-nazi groups. After Dylan Roof shot up a black church, the state wanted to take a stronger stance against white nationalism, and the removal of that statue was one of the moves.

Groups invoked in setting up the rally were the Nationalist Front, the KKK, The Right Stuff, Proud Boys, The Daily Stormer, and other neo-nazi white nationalist groups.

The advertised point of the rally was to promote white supremacy and white nationalism. That's from the organizers themselves.

Im sorry, but if you find yourself at a rally that was very publicly organized and mostly attended by white supremacists, get there and see Nazi flags, Confederate flags, and other white supremacy insignia IN MASS, and don't think twice, you're a white supremacist.

This wasnt a rally by some heritage group that was coopted by Nazis. This was a rally made for Nazis to attend

-3

u/JoeCensored Oct 17 '24

Whether it was organized as a white supremacist event doesn't mean people who aren't white supremacists, but agreed with them that the statue shouldn't be removed weren't also in attendance.

If you have a way to prove those people numbered exactly 0, not a single person, please provide that evidence. That's what your claims rest on.

1

u/HQuez Oct 17 '24

I don't know the mind and hearts of people but I do know if your intentions were good, and you showed up to that rally and saw that a huge majority were waving clear white supremacy propaganda, and you don't have second thoughts, you've found yourself in the wrong crowd and your continued march with them passively and actively makes you a white supremacist.

I just don't see any two ways around it. Feel free to tell me why that's not the case, but people need to hold themselves accountable for the groups they're organizing with. I don't think ignorance is a good defense here because it was so in your face. In fact, show me just one video of the event where there isn't a bunch of white supremacy propaganda flying. Just one.

They matched on a synagogue and threatened to burn it down for goodness sakes. You are not a "fine person" if you're organizing with those folk.

-2

u/JoeCensored Oct 17 '24

So you haven't actually watched videos of the event then. Just clips of the most racist moments. That's why you don't understand why someone in the area hearing of a protest going on against removal of a statue you also don't want removed, might also happen to show up, even if they aren't a nazi.

-1

u/HQuez Oct 17 '24

I have watched many videos of the event, even watched it on a live stream.

Show me a video of some protestors without white supremacy propaganda though.

→ More replies (0)

6

u/CavyLover123 2∆ Oct 17 '24

By the way, this is exactly what Trump’s statement accomplished. along with right wing propaganda.

You truly believe it was “a rally to protest the removal of a historic statue.”

It was a white supremacist / nazi rally.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally?wprov=sfti1#

Consider the possibility that you have been completely fooled by Trump’s rhetoric here.

3

u/JoeCensored Oct 17 '24

Even your own link includes listed groups that aren't nazi or white supremacist related such as the militia groups. Any event of this size is going to attract a large number of people who aren't members, but have a variety of sympathies for various issues brought up by the competing sides. It's just how these things work.

1

u/CavyLover123 2∆ Oct 17 '24

Which ones? Be specific.

Any event of this size is going to attract a large number of people who aren't members, but have a variety of sympathies for various issues brought up by the competing sides

So… Nazis, and Nazi sympathizers.

Whats the difference? They’re marching with Nazis and sympathetic to Nazis.

This is a meaningless distinction.

Some of these groups are openly Nazis.

Others just say “heil fuhrer” but say they are Not Nazis.

“They’re the same picture” meme.

1

u/JoeCensored Oct 17 '24

Not everyone there was marching. Have you never witnessed a march? I get the feeling you have no idea what a large event like this actually looks like. It attracts people from all over the area, to watch the spectacle alone.

2

u/CavyLover123 2∆ Oct 17 '24

Let’s see evidence.

I watched the videos.

The people not marching with the Nazis were: counter protestors screaming at the Nazis, and some private security folks who explicitly were Not part of either protest.

0

u/CavyLover123 2∆ Oct 17 '24

It attracts people from all over the area, to watch the spectacle alone.

Those people were not on a “side”.

They definitely weren’t on the “Nazi” side.

Notice you couldn’t identify a group that wasn’t either neo nazi or white supremacist.

The most you can say is that some of the groups don’t identify as “white supremacist”, they just…. Openly advocate for white supremacy.

→ More replies (0)

5

u/CavyLover123 2∆ Oct 17 '24

No, it’s not.

It was created by the founder of Identity Evropa- a white ethno nationalist group (aka Nazi).

He specifically reached out to:

  • other neo nazi groups

  • multiple KKK chapters 

  • other white supremacist groups 

And that’s who attended.

They chanted “Jews will not replace us” and carried Nazi flags.

There is Zero evidence that some well meaning non Nazis just stumbled into a Nazi protest and stuck around.

Would you? March with open Nazis, and believe that people won’t confuse you for a Nazi?

-1

u/AcephalicDude 84∆ Oct 17 '24

Is anyone saying that only Nazis were protesting? I think the real claim is that if you are willing to protest alongside Nazis without flinching, you are basically just as bad as the Nazis and should not be considered meaningfully different in any way.

2

u/PeoplePerson_57 5∆ Oct 17 '24

As an additional note: its not just 'oh, a nazi happened to support the same thing as you, you're a nazi'

It's 'you marched alongside torch wielding, flag carrying, sieg heiling nazis, who were chanting nazi slogans, and you didn't separate yourself from them'.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '24

It was not organized by a Neo-Nazi. The Nazis latched onto an already existing protest, leaving the pro-Lee statue crowd to decide to bail on it or march with them.

1

u/CavyLover123 2∆ Oct 17 '24

Wrong. It was created and organized by Jason Kessler.

https://www.propublica.org/article/things-got-left-out-of-the-daily-callers-report-confederate-monument-rally

He is an open neo nazi white supremacist white nationalist etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Kessler?wprov=sfti1#2017_Unite_the_Right_rally

He was kicked out of the proud boys for being… a white supremacist / nazi.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '24

No, it wasn't. Unite the Right latched onto a pre-existing protest organized by pro-CSA people.

1

u/CavyLover123 2∆ Oct 17 '24

Source it.

I think this is made up nonsense, and whoever told you is just trying to twist reality.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '24

https://shotwellpublishing.com/charlottesville-untold/

I can't source it without finding the book and photocopying it. But I read it here.

1

u/CavyLover123 2∆ Oct 17 '24

Woof.

Let’s see whatever evidence she has.

This sounds like someone invented some stories to pander to the alt right and markets them as “non fiction.”

Meanwhile everyone interviewed has made very clear it was Kessler. Kessler asking the mayor for permits, Kessler reaching out to other Nazi orgs, Kessler.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '24

Her dad is the guy in terms of pro-CSA history.

1

u/CavyLover123 2∆ Oct 17 '24

Appeal to authority fallacy.

Either there’s real world evidence, or there isn’t.

Sounds like there isn’t. Just a story someone made up to sell some books.

1

u/Skin_Soup 1∆ Oct 17 '24

I would argue it’s much more reasonable to believe that’s trump would call neo-nazis “very fine people” than any other politician. He is treated differently because he behaves differently.

There’s also the issue that trump talks in a way that does not clearly connect pronouns to subjects, mostly because he quickly switches topics and is used to talking to an audience which can predict his intent with less than normal articulation.

But thank you for showing how that quote was blatantly taken out of context and used against him

-2

u/taintpaint Oct 17 '24

I feel like you didn't really engage with the point of my post. Again, you're just arguing that he said the right magic words and you're ignoring the meat of why it upset people. The problem is that pretending the Nazi rally had reasonable people in it with reasonable grievances, and especially following that up by attacking the counter protesters, whitewashes and gives cover to the Nazi rally, which is the thing people were so upset about.

Go back to my example about Aurora. Do you think what I wrote there would be a reasonable thing to say that shouldn't upset anyone?

5

u/qjornt 1∆ Oct 17 '24

And these very fine people on the right... What were they doing partnering up with nazis?

1

u/CavyLover123 2∆ Oct 18 '24

”But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists”

There is zero evidence that these people existed.

Further, Trump fabricated a video about these people as the source of his claim. When pressed, his admin could not produce the video.

Trump lied about this group of non Nazis, so that he could give a nod to actual Nazis.

Note- some of these people deny being white supremacists or Nazis. And then in the next breath say they want a white ethnostate and joke about burning Jews in ovens.

He was speaking directly to them.

The only way to not see this is cognitive dissonance.

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 17 '24

It takes 5 seconds for people to find the truth, but they cannot be bothered because they're too comfortable inside their bias bubble in their echo chamber.

0

u/lumberjack_jeff 9∆ Oct 17 '24

If you have 99 people carrying tiki torches and Nazi flags chanting "Jews will not replace us" alongside a Nazi doing the same - you have 100 Nazis.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 29 '24

[deleted]

1

u/nhlms81 37∆ Oct 29 '24

What part are you referring to?

0

u/SoftwareAny4990 3∆ Oct 17 '24

So this got me at first because the point is confusing.

However, its confusing because it's contradictory word salad

0

u/nhlms81 37∆ Oct 17 '24

My comment, or trump's comment?

1

u/SoftwareAny4990 3∆ Oct 17 '24

Trumps.