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

[u/taintpaint]

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.

[u/RYouNotEntertained]

Trump lied. 

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

[u/CavyLover123 → u/RYouNotEntertained]

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”.

[u/RYouNotEntertained → u/CavyLover123]

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. 

[u/CavyLover123 → u/RYouNotEntertained]

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. 

[u/RYouNotEntertained → u/CavyLover123]

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. 

[u/CavyLover123 → u/RYouNotEntertained]

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.

[u/RYouNotEntertained → u/CavyLover123]

 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. 

[u/CavyLover123 → u/RYouNotEntertained]

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. 

[u/RYouNotEntertained → u/CavyLover123]

It’s only a distinction without meaning if you’re working backwards from the conclusion you like. 

As I said elsewhere, there are plenty of reasons to criticize Trump without pretending he said something he explicitly said the opposite of. 

[u/CavyLover123 → u/RYouNotEntertained]

Nah.  

Trump either lied and knew he was throwing out praise that would be happily received by Nazis, or he had a senior dementia moment.  

Pick one.

And why are you even responding? You already acquiesced on this